Category: Environmental Law

Biden Administration Announces Voluntary Carbon Market Principles

The recent Joint Policy Statement and Principles (Principles) released by the Biden Administration, and related remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, mark a significant milestone in the development of the voluntary carbon market (VCM).

Our views on this announcement and a brief summary of these Principles are set out below.

This is a very encouraging, and intriguing, governmental announcement in respect of an unregulated, international market.

One of the critical aspects of this announcement is the US government’s approach to balancing market promotion with non-regulation. The VCM is notably unregulated, and the intention is for it to remain so. As such, the announcement appears to be striving to foster integrity and growth within the market whilst avoiding the imposition of rigid regulatory frameworks that could stifle growth. There is a clear nod from the government to the market’s voluntary nature, thereby allowing for flexibility and the opportunity for diverse, creative solutions to emerge. However, the VCM has faced challenges that are not unusual for a nascent, evolving market and the government clearly wants to stimulate the market by providing clear guidance that enhances trust and integrity. This delicate equilibrium is essential for the long-term success and scalability of the VCM.

These Principles therefore serve as voluntary (but government-endorsed) guidelines, moving towards establishing a structure that market participants can follow to ensure the credibility and reliability of carbon credits.

The Principles do not reshape the current market. They are based instead, in large part, on existing best practice advocated by private sector and non-governmental organisations and initiatives. We have considered in some detail in a prior article these existing quasi-regulatory bodies and their functions – much of which is echoed in the Principles.

The Principles seek to bolster integrity in three main areas: on the supply side, demand side and the actual market itself.

Supply-side

  • Principle 1 – “Integrity & Standards”: Carbon credits must meet strict integrity standards and be certified through robust, transparent verification processes to ensure additionality, quantifiability and permanence.
  • Principle 2 – “Avoid Harm”: Generating credits should cause no environmental or social harm and promote co-benefits including sustainable development and increased biodiversity, involving relevant stakeholders in the process.

Demand-side

  • Principle 3 – “Buyer Responsibility”: Companies offsetting credits should set net-zero strategies, maintain an inventory of emissions (detailing Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions) and regularly report.
  • Principle 4 – “Transparency”: Companies offsetting credits should publicly disclose details of purchased and retired credits annually, ensuring information is accessible and comparable.
  • Principle 5 – “Accurate Claims”: Public offsetting claims must accurately reflect the climate impact of credits and only use those meeting high integrity standards, prioritising internal emissions reductions.

Market-side

  • Principle 6 – “Market Integrity”: Stakeholders should seek to improve market functionality, transparency and equity to enhance the market’s overall health and high-integrity.
  • Principle 7 – “Facilitate Participation”: Policymakers and market participants should lower transaction costs and barriers for credit providers, ensuring market certainty and bankability of VCM projects, especially from developing regions.

On the supply side (Principles 1 and 2), inspiration has been drawn from, amongst other sources, the Core Carbon Principles and other standards of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. On the demand side (Principles 3, 4 and 5), inspiration has been drawn from, amongst other sources, the Claims Code of Practice and other standards of the Voluntary Carbon Market Initiative. On the market side (Principles 6 and 7) the message is more general and is aimed at promoting the integrity of the standards/registries and their participants and focussing on the policymakers. The Principles conclude with a rallying cry for policymakers and buyers to consider ways to enhance market certainty for lenders undertaking long term investments. The current financing landscape of the VCM is an area which we have also considered in some detail in a prior article.

The Principles and comments from Treasury acknowledge that the VCM, in its current state, suffers from some key challenges that inhibit growth at the scale needed to achieve national and international climate goals. The seven Principles outlined above are the government’s initial efforts at assisting to overcome those challenges. They reflect the importance of a functioning carbon reduction infrastructure (both physical and financial) to the government, and a high level of understanding of the carbon abatement ecosystem. And, perhaps most importantly, these statements recognise and encourage the involvement and initiative of all participating stakeholders to take demonstrative steps to establish a market-based approach to carbon reduction. As Secretary Yellen’s statement says, “harnessing the power of markets and private capital is critical.”

While the VCM principles announcement reflects an attempt to improve confidence in voluntary carbon offsets, at the same time the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) signalled its interest in establishing public protocols specifically for third-party verification of offsets deriving from forestry and farming. This action reflects a keen interest on both sides of the political aisle in Congress. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee noted that both the VCM principles and the USDA announcement established that, “Voluntary carbon credit markets generate new revenue streams for farmers, foresters, and rural communities, and there is clear enthusiasm across private industry and the public sector to tap into that potential.” Sen. Stabenow further notes that these actions “will strengthen the integrity of these markets and build a foundation for the future.”

The VCM principles and USDA statement can be seen as part of an effort to implement the Growing Climate Solutions Act which was designed to break down barriers for farmers, ranchers, and foresters interested in participating in carbon markets and in embracing so-called climate-smart agricultural practices. The Act was passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by President Biden on December 29, 2022. As the House and Senate consider “farm bills” in the near future, we can expect more action on agricultural offsets.

These announcements clearly underscore the government’s commitment to promoting the VCM without the enforcement of laws or regulations. It is a firm message of support for the VCM, and explicit recognition that development of the VCM is critical to unlocking carbon abatement projects globally. It clarifies that the current administration recognises the VCM as another component of the energy transition required to achieve national and international climate goals, as well as sustainable environmental practices. In particular, these seven Principles provide a framework that can guide the VCM’s growth. Whilst the Principles goldplate (rather than reinvent) existing best practice, this achieves the sensitive balancing act required from a government seeking to promote an unregulated market.

© 2024 Bracewell LLP
For more on the Carbon Market, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources section.

Deep-Sea Mining–Article 1: What Is Happening With Deep-Sea Mining?

Debate continues on whether the UAE Consensus achieved at COP28 represents a promising step forward or a missed opportunity in the drive towards climate neutral energy systems. However, the agreement that countries should “transition away from fossil fuels” and triple green power capacity by 2030 spotlights the need for countries to further embrace renewable power.

This series will examine the issues stakeholders need to consider in connection with deep-sea mining. We first provide an introduction to deep-sea mining and its current status. Future articles will consider in greater detail the regulatory and contractual landscape, important practical considerations, and future developments, including decisions of the ISA Council.

POLYMETALLIC NODULES

Current technology for the generation of wind and solar power (as well as the batteries needed to store such power) requires scarce raw materials, including nickel, manganese, cobalt, and copper. The fact that these minerals are found in the millions of polymetallic nodules scattered on areas of the ocean floor gives rise to another debate on whether the deep-sea mining of these nodules should be pursued.
This issue attracted considerable attention over the summer of 2023, when the International Seabed Authority (ISA) Assembly and Council held its 28th Session and, in January 2024, when Norway’s parliament (the Storting) made Norway the first country to formally authorise seabed mining activities in its waters.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF DEEP-SEA MINERALS: UNCLOS AND ISA

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a comprehensive regime for the management of the world’s oceans. It also established ISA.

ISA is the body that authorises international seabed exploration and mining. It also collects and distributes the seabed mining royalties in relation to those areas outside each nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Since 1994, ISA has approved over 30 ocean-floor mining exploration contracts in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, with most covering the so-called ‘Clarion-Clipperton Zone’ (an environmental management area of the Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and Mexico). These currently-approved contracts run for 15 years and permit contract holders to seek out (but not commercially exploit) polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the deep seabed.

UNCLOS TWO-YEAR RULE AND ISA’S 28TH SESSION

Section 1(15) of the annex to the 1994 Implementation Agreement includes a provision known as the “two-year rule.” This provision allows any member state of ISA that intends to apply for the approval of a plan of work for exploitation of the seabed to request that the ISA Council draw up and adopt regulations governing such exploitation within two years.

In July 2021, the Republic of Nauru triggered the two-year rule, seeking authority to undertake commercial exploitation of polymetallic nodules under license. That set an operative deadline of 9 July 2023.

At meetings of the ISA Assembly and ISA Council in July 2023, the ISA Council determined that more time was needed to establish processes for prospecting, exploring, and exploiting mineral resources, and a new target was set for finalising the rules: July 2025.

The expiration of the two-year rule in July 2023 does allow mining companies to submit a mining license application at any time. However, the above extension gives the ISA Council direct input into the approval process, which will make approval of any application difficult.

NORWAY’S DEEP-SEA MINING PLAN

State legislation regulates deep-sea mining in different EEZs. Norway is one of the only countries that has its own legislation (the Norway Seabed Minerals Act of 2019) regulating the exploration and extraction of deep-sea minerals.

In December 2023, Norway agreed to allow seabed mineral exploration off the coast of Norway, ahead of a formal parliamentary decision. The proposal was voted 80-20 in favour by the Storting on 9 January 2024.

The proposal will permit exploratory mining across a large section of the Norwegian seabed, after which the Storting can decide whether to issue commercial permits.

The decision initially applies to Norwegian waters and exposes an area larger than Great Britain to potential sea-bed mining, although the Norwegian government has noted that it will only issue licenses after more environmental research has been done.

The Norwegian government has defended the plan as a way to seize an economic opportunity and shore up the security of critical supply chains. However, there is concern that this will pave the way towards deep-sea mining around the world. Green activists, scientists, fishermen, and investors have called upon Oslo to reconsider its position. They cite the lack of scientific data about the effects of deep-sea mining on the marine environment, as well as the potential impact on Arctic ecosystems. In November 2023, 120 European Union lawmakers wrote an open letter to Norwegian members of the Storting, urging them unsuccessfully to reject the project, and in February 2024, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution that raised concerns about Norway’s deep-sea mining regulations. This resolution carries no legal power, but it does send a strong signal to Norway that the European Union does not support its plans.

In May 2024, WWF-Norway announced it will sue the Norwegian government for opening its seabed to deep-sea mining. WWF-Norway claim that the government has failed to properly investigate the consequences of its decision, has acted against the counsel of its own advisors, and has breached Norwegian law.

METHODS OF POLYMETALLIC NODULE EXTRACTION

Should Norway, or any other nation, initiate commercial deep-seabed mining, one of the following methods of mineral extraction may be employed:

Continuous Line Bucket System

This system utilises a surface vessel, a loop of cable to which dredge buckets are attached at 20–25 meter intervals, and a traction machine on the surface vessel, which circulates the cable. Operating much like a conveyor belt, ascending and descending lines complete runs to the ocean floor, gathering and then carrying the nodules to a ship or station for processing.

Hydraulic Suction System

A riser pipe attached to a surface vessel “vacuums” the seabed, for example, by lifting the nodules on compressed air or by using a centrifugal pump. A separate pipe returns tailings to the area of the mining site.

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

Large ROVs traverse the ocean floor collecting nodules in a variety of ways. This might involve blasting the seafloor with water jets or collection by vacuuming.

Recent progress has been made in the development of these vehicles; a pre-prototype polymetallic nodule collector was successfully trialed in 2021 at a water depth of 4,500 metres, and in December 2022, the first successful recovery of polymetallic nodules from the abyssal plain was completed, using an integrated collector, riser, and lift system on an ROV. A glimpse of the future of deep-sea ROVs perhaps comes in the form of the development of robotic nodule-collection devices, equipped with artificial intelligence that allows them to distinguish between nodules and aquatic life.

Key to all three methods of mineral extraction is the production support vessel, the main facility for collecting, gathering, filtering, and storing polymetallic nodules. Dynamically positioned drillships, formerly utilised in the oil and gas sector, have been identified/converted for this purpose, and market-leading companies active in deep-water operations, including drilling and subsea construction, are investing in this area. It will be interesting to see how the approach to the inherent engineering and technological challenges will continue to develop.

THE RISKS OF DEEP-SEA MINING

As a nascent industry, deep-sea mining presents risks to both the environment and the stakeholders involved:

Environmental Risks

ISA’s delayed operative deadline for finalising regulations has been welcomed by parties who are concerned about the environmental impact that deep-sea mining may have.

Scientists warn that mining the deep could cause an irreversible loss of biodiversity to deep-sea ecosystems; sediment plumes, wastewater, and noise and light pollution all have the potential to seriously impact the species that exist within and beyond the mining sites. The deep-ocean floor supports thousands of unique species, despite being dark and nutrient-poor, including microbes, worms, sponges, and other invertebrates. There are also concerns that mining will impact the ocean’s ability to function as a carbon sink, resulting in a potentially wider environmental impact.

Stakeholder and Investor Risks

While deep-sea mining doesn’t involve the recovery and handling of combustible oil or gas, which is often associated with offshore operations, commercial risks associated with the deployment of sophisticated (and expensive) equipment in water depths of 2,000 metres or greater are significant. In April 2021, a specialist deep-sea mining subsidiary lost a mining robot prototype that had uncoupled from a 5-kilometer-long cable connecting it to the surface. The robot was recovered after initial attempts failed, but this illustrates the potentially expensive problems that deep-sea mining poses. Any companies wishing to become involved in deep-sea mining will also need to be careful to protect their reputation. Involvement in a deep-sea mining project that causes (or is perceived to cause) environmental damage or that experiences serious problems could attract strong negative publicity.

INVESTOR CONSIDERATIONS

Regulations have not kept up with the increased interest in deep-sea mining, and there are no clear guidelines on how to structure potential deep-sea investments. This is especially true in international waters, where a relationship with a sponsoring state is necessary. Exploitative investments have not been covered by ISA, and it is unclear how much control investors will have over the mining process. It is also unclear how investors might be able to apportion responsibility for loss/damage and what level of due diligence needs to be conducted ahead of operations. Any involvement carries with it significant risk, and stakeholders will do well to manage their rights and obligations as matters evolve.

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
For more news on Deep Sea Mining, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

New Florida Law Requires HOAs to Adopt Hurricane Protection Measures

Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 293 in an effort to help protect Florida’s single-family homes. Effective immediately, all homeowners associations in the state are mandated to establish hurricane protection specifications along with any other pertinent factors as determined by the association’s board of directors. These specifications should be adopted to ensure a cohesive external appearance for buildings within the HOA – including considerations such as “color and style” – while adhering to relevant building codes and affording exceptional protection to Florida homes.

The primary objective of House Bill 239 is to safeguard the welfare and safety of the state’s residents, as well as to guarantee consistency and uniformity in the implementation of hurricane protection measures by parcel owners. It is imperative to note that, except in cases where violations to these specifications occur, HOAs are prohibited from preventing homeowners from installing or upgrading hurricane protection products. This legislation applies universally to all homeowners associations, regardless of when the community was created.

Hurricane protection products under House Bill 239, include but are not limited to:

  • Roof systems recognized by the Florida Building Code which meet ASCE 7-22 48 standards
  • Permanent fixed storm shutters
  • Roll-down track storm shutters
  • Impact-resistant windows and doors
  • Reinforced garage doors
  • Erosion controls
  • Exterior fixed generators
  • Fuel storage tanks
  • Other hurricane protection products used to preserve and protect the structures or improvements on a parcel governed by the association

Most weather analysts have projected an above average hurricane season for 2024, predicting one of the busier hurricane seasons on record. This increase in activity has been attributed to record warm water temperatures and the influence of La Niña. As such, it underscores the critical importance of proactive measures to safeguard property and ensure the well-being of residents.

It is strongly encouraged that all homeowners associations begin the process of considering the standards for hurricane protection that are right for their communities and adopt a resolution encompassing these guidelines immediately.

© 2024 Varnum LLP
For more news on Protecting Florida Homes during Hurricane Season, visit the NLR Real Estate section.

NJDEP Proposes Bald Eagle Removal and Other Changes to New Jersey’s Threatened and Endangered Species Lists

On June 3, 2024, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection announced a rule proposal which would update the endangered species and the nongame species lists promulgated by the Fish & Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program (“ENSP”). These proposed updates would reflect, among other changes, the recategorization of the conservation status of certain species from the ENSP lists along with other structural and organizational amendments.

Primarily, the proposal celebrates the prospective reduced conservation status of three species, including the Peregrine Falcon, Bobcat, and Cope’s Gray Treefrog which each will have their conservation status reduced from “Endangered” to “Threatened.”

More significantly, the Bald Eagle, Red-headed Woodpecker, and Osprey are proposed to have their status reduced to “Special Concern” or “Secure/Stable.” The Department has further proposed partial conservation status reductions for the non-breeding populations of certain bird species including the Yellow-crowned Night-Heron, and Red-headed Woodpecker which have both been reduced to “Special Concern” for non-breeding activities. In effect, these species are being delisted, which is significant for Land Resource permitting under the Coastal Rules and Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. This also should impact permitting under Pinelands Commission regulations.

Inapposite to those species having their conservation status reduced, the Department has proposed increased conservation designations for thirty (30) species, including select species particularly impactful to development and redevelopment initiatives in New Jersey. Those include three species of bat, the Northern Myotis, Little Brown Bat, and Tricolored Bat, which will each move from an undetermined/unknown status to “Endangered.”

Lastly, the Department proposes moving currently threatened species listed on the nongame species list at N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.17 to the endangered species list at N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.13. This restructuring will leave the species’ conservation status unchanged and includes a number of special species for New Jersey development and redevelopment, such as the Bobolink and Grasshopper Sparrow.

In addition to these conservation status changes, the Department has proposed a new procedure which would allow the addition of species to the list of endangered species by notice of administrative change when that species has been added to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species of wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 at 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. and is indigenous to New Jersey. The Department notes this procedure seeks to further the goal of creating a listing that is more consistent with the Federal standard but in doing so the State will obviate the typical Administrative Procedure Act public comment process.

Matthew L. Capone contributed to this article

© 2024 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
For more news on New Jersey’s Threatened and Endangered Species Lists, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Illinois Passes Comprehensive Law Governing Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration Projects in Illinois

On May 26, the Illinois legislature passed comprehensive carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) legislation. CCUS involves the capture of carbon dioxide directly from ambient air or uses processes to separate carbon dioxide from industrial or energy-related sources, either for use or for underground injection for long-term storage.
The Safety and Aid for the Environment in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act (SAFE CCS Act), establishes, among other requirements, protections for pore space owners, additional requirements for CO2 pipeline development, and a permitting program for sequestration projects. CCUS projects not grandfathered from the SAFE CCS ACT will now need to adhere to Illinois state sequestration requirements in addition to existing federal regulations.

Pore Space

First, the SAFE CCS Act sets forth requirements and procedures to obtain “pore space” for sequestration. “Pore space” is defined in the Act as the “portion of the geologic media … that can be used to store carbon dioxide.” Illinois has an abundance of geologic media appropriate for sequestration, according to the Illinois State Geologic Survey, and the areas are generally far underground (from 2000 to 7000 ft below ground surface). The SAFE CCS Act specifies that title to pore space remains in the surface owner, but pore space can be leased or subject to an easement. The owner or operator of a sequestration facility must obtain pore space rights from at least 75% of the landowners that may be affected and can petition the US Department of Natural Resources for “unitization” if “holdouts” occur. Certain documents must be provided to the Department and no “pore space” can be used until a federal Class VI well permit has been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

CO2 Pipelines

Second, the SAFE CCS Act amends Illinois’ existing Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Sequestration Act (CO2 Act), including the requirements for an owner or operator of a CO2 pipeline to receive a “certificate of authority” from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) to construct and operate a CO2 pipeline. The Act further requires that the ICC verify compliance with applicable Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) safety rules. The SAFE CCS ACT purports to prohibit the ICC from issuing any certificates of authority for new CO2 pipelines until the earlier of July 2026, or PHMSA’s completion of a current rulemaking process to update its CO2 pipeline safety standards. The Safe CCS Act does clarify the intention that (1) an operator receiving a certificate of authority under the CO2 Act does not have to also obtain a certificate from the ICC as a common carrier by pipeline under the Illinois Common Carrier by Pipeline Law (220 ILCS 5/15-101 et seq.); and (2) grants of certificates of authority under the CO2 Act are not limited only to pipelines transporting carbon dioxide captured from sources using coal.

Emergency Response

Third, the SAFE CCS Act requires detailed emergency response planning for CCS projects. The ACT assigns emergency response authority to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, providing a number of responsibilities and resources to the Agency to enhance training, oversight, and enforcement capability pertaining to emergency response for CCS facilities.

Sequestration Permit Program

Fourth, the SAFE CCS Act requires sequestration facility operators to obtain a permit from the Illinois EPA prior to constructing any portion of the sequestration project. This permit is in addition to, and goes beyond the requirements of, the existing requirement to obtain a federal Class VI injection well permit from US EPA. The permitting regime under the SAFE CCS Act requires various evaluations and reports, including an evaluation of the impact on water resources used by the sequestration facility. The Illinois environmental permit will cover long-term reporting, monitoring, and financial assurance mechanisms.

Liability

Finally, the SAFE CCS Act includes provisions on the assignment of liability associated with the sequestration, storage, and management of CO2. Specifically, the SAFE CCS Act specifies that the operator of the sequestration facility, not the state, is responsible for any personal or property damage caused by the sequestration. It clarifies that the sequestered gas remains the property of the operator of the sequestration, not the owner of the pore space.

The Act also requires a variety of fees and the creation of various funds to support the administration, emergency preparedness, and environmental justice initiatives across the state. It also appears to prohibit the use of captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery processes.

Governor J.B. Pritzker has indicated he will sign the legislation when it reaches his desk. If enacted, it is expected that the Illinois EPA, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and the ICC will promulgate rules to assist with implementing the Act.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more news on Illinois’s New Carbon Capture Law, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Treasury Proposes Clean Electricity Tax Guidance

On May 29, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department released the pre-publication version of proposed guidance to implement “technology-neutral” clean electricity tax credits, including deeming certain technologies as per se zero-emitting and outlining potential methodologies for determining how other technologies—namely those involving combustion or gasification—could qualify as zero-emitting based on a lifecycle emissions analysis (LCA). The Clean Electricity Production Credit (45Y) and Clean Electricity Investment Credit (48E) were enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 and replace the current production and investment tax credits that are explicitly tied to certain types of renewable energy technologies.

Stakeholders have cited the 45Y and 48E credits as the most important driver of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts possible from the IRA over the next decade. One study by the Rhodium Group found that the credits could reduce the power sector’s GHG emissions by up to 73 percent by 2035. The tax credits aim to give qualifying facilities the ability to develop technologies over time as they reduce emissions and offer longer-term certainty for investors and developers of clean energy projects. This proposed rule, when finalized, will be a critical driver for developers and companies allocating resources among different projects and investments.

The proposed guidance is scheduled to be published June 3, 2024 in the Federal Register, launching a 60-day comment period. A public hearing will be held August 12-13, 2024.

Proposed Guidance Details

Starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 for projects placed into service after Dec. 31, 2024, 45Y provides taxpayers with a base credit of 0.3 cents (1.5 cents, if the project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements) per kilowatt of electricity produced and sold or stored at facilities with zero or negative GHG emissions. (These per kilowatt credit values are adjusted for inflation using 1990 as the base year.) Under 48E, taxpayers would receive a 6 percent base credit (30 percent, if the project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements) on qualified investment in a qualified facility for the year the project is placed in service. Both credits include bonus amounts for projects located in historical energy communities, low-income communities, or on tribal land; for meeting certain domestic manufacturing requirements; or for being part of a low-income residential building or economic benefit project. Direct pay and transferability are options for both credits. Both credits are in effect until 2032, when they become subject to a three-year phaseout.

Technologies recognized as per se zero-emissions in the guidance are wind, solar, hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic, nuclear fission and fusion, geothermal, and certain types of waste energy recovery property (WERP). The guidance also outlines how energy storage can qualify, including by proposing definitions of electricity, thermal, and hydrogen storage property.

A principal debate in the proposal is how to determine, using an LCA, whether certain combustion and gasification (C&G) technologies can qualify as zero-emitting.

The guidance includes a set of definitions and interpretations critical to implementation of the tax credits. For example, the proposed C&G definition includes a hydrogen fuel cell if it “produced electricity using hydrogen that was produced by an electrolyzer powered, in whole or in part, by electricity from the grid because some of the electricity from the grid was produced through combustion or gasification.” The proposed C&G definition would also include both biogas- and biomass-based power, but eligibility depends on the LCA results; for biomass, the guidance seeks comment on what spatial and temporal scales should apply and how land use impacts the LCA.

The guidance states that the IRS intends to establish rules for qualifying facilities that generate electricity from biogas, renewable natural gas, and fugitive sources of methane. The guidance says that Treasury and the IRS “anticipate” requiring that, for such facilities, the gas must originate from the “first productive use of the relevant methane.”

The proposed C&G definition allows for carbon capture and storage (CCS) that meets LCA requirements. However, the IRA does not allow credits to go toward facilities already using certain other credits, including the relatively more generous section 45Q credits for CCS.

Specifically, there are seven other credits that cannot be used in combination with a 45Y or 48E credit: 45 (existing clean electricity production credit); 45J (advanced nuclear electricity credit); 45Q (CCS); 45U (zero-emission nuclear credit); 48 (existing clean electricity investment credit); for 45Y, 48E (new clean electricity production credit); and for 48E, 45Y (new clean electricity investment credit).

The guidance proposes beginning and ending boundaries for LCAs, stating “the starting boundaries would include the processes necessary to produce and collect or extract the raw materials used to produce electricity from combustion or gasification technologies, including those used as energy inputs to electricity production. This includes the emissions effects of relevant land management activities or changes related to or associated with feedstock production.” Another topic in the guidance is the use of carbon offsets to reach net-zero qualification status, with the proposal seeking comment on boundaries: “offsets and offsetting activities that are unrelated to the production of electricity by a C&G Facility, including the production and distribution of any input fuel, may not be taken into account” by an LCA. The guidance also includes rules on qualified interconnection costs in the basis of a low-output associated qualified facility, the expansion of a facility and incremental production, and the retrofitting of an existing facility.

The guidance describes the role of the Department of Energy (DOE) in implementing the tax credits. Any future changes to technologies designated as zero-emitting or to the LCA models must be completed with analyses prepared by DOE’s national labs along with other technical experts. Facilities seeking eligibility may also request a “provisional emissions rate,” which DOE would administer with the national labs and experts “as appropriate.”

Next Steps

As noted above, the proposed guidance is scheduled to be published June 3, 2024 in the Federal Register, launching a 60-day comment period for interested parties to make arguments and provide evidence for changes they would like to see before the rule becomes final. A public hearing will be held August 12-13, 2024. The Treasury Department in consultation with interagency experts plans to carefully review comments and continue to evaluate how other types of clean energy technologies, including C&G technologies, may qualify for the clean electricity credits.

© 2024 Van Ness Feldman LLP
For more news on Clean Energy Tax Credits, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Recently Effective & Pending State Housing Laws: 2024 Land Use, Environmental & Natural Resources Update

Various state housing bills are currently making their way through the State Legislature that are expected to benefit mixed-income multifamily housing developers. The following summaries reflect the status of the legislation as of May 15, 2024. The legislative process is ongoing and future amendments are expected.

The recently effective state housing laws are also summarized below.

PART I: RECENTLY EFFECTIVE STATE HOUSING LAWS

Governor Newsom approved multiple state housing bills passed by the State Assembly and Senate during the last legislative session. The following is an abbreviated summary of a few of the key bills that are expected to benefit mixed-income multifamily housing developers, with a more detailed summary available in our prior legal alert.

SENATE BILL 423 — EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF SENATE BILL 35

SB 423 (Wiener) extends the sunset provision for and makes other substantive changes to SB 35. As explained in our prior legal alert, SB 35 provides for a streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval process for qualifying housing development projects in local jurisdictions that have not made sufficient progress towards their state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

SB 423 made the following key amendments to SB 35:

  • Extended SB 35 to January 1, 2036
  • Expanded SB 35 to apply when a local jurisdiction fails to adopt a housing element in substantial compliance with state housing element law (regardless of RHNA progress), as specified and as determined by HCD
  • Revised the coastal zone development prohibition to allow for projects in specified urban coastal locations (e.g., property not vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise or within close proximity to a wetland) where the property is zoned for multifamily housing and is subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan
  • Removed skilled and trained workforce requirements for projects below 85 feet in height and imposes modified skilled and trained workforce requirements, as specified, for projects at least 85 feet in height. In exchange, projects with 50 or more dwelling units and using construction craft employees to meet apprenticeship program requirements and provide health care expenditures for each employee, as specified

Please see our prior legal alert for information about other SB 35 amendments made by SB 423, including San Francisco-specific amendments.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1287 — ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW

AB 1287 (Alvarez) amended the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915) by incentivizing the construction of housing units for both the “missing middle” and very-low-income households by providing for an additional density bonus, and incentive/ concession for projects providing moderate-income units or very-low-income units.

The project must provide the requisite percentage of on-site affordable units to obtain the maximum density bonus (50%) under prior law: 15% very-low-income units, or 24% low-income units, or 44% moderate-income (ownership only) units (the Base Bonus). To qualify for an additional density bonus (up to 100%) and an additional incentive/concession under AB 1287, the project must provide additional on-site affordable units, as specified (the Added Bonus). The Added Bonus may be obtained by adding moderate-income units to either a rental or ownership project, but that is capped at a total maximum of 50% moderate-income units.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1633 — EXPANSION OF HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT PROTECTIONS: CEQA

AB 1633 (Ting) closed a loophole in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code section 65589.5 et seq.) by establishing when a local agency’s failure to exercise its discretion under CEQA, or abuse of its discretion under CEQA, constitutes a violation of the HAA.

To qualify under AB 1633, the project must be a “housing development project” under the HAA and meet other specified requirements, as summarized in our prior legal alert. Under AB 1633, the following circumstances constitute “disapproval” of the project, in which case the local agency could be subject to enforcement under the HAA:

  • CEQA Exemptions. If (i) the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption based on substantial evidence in the record (and is not subject to an exception to that exemption) and (ii) the local agency does not make a lawful determination, as defined, on the exemption within 90 days (with a possible extension, as specified) of timely written notice from the applicant, as specified.
  • Other CEQA Determinations. If (i) the project qualifies for a negative declaration, addendum, EIR, or comparable environmental review document under CEQA; (ii) the local agency commits an abuse of discretion, as defined, by failing to approve the applicable CEQA document in bad faith or without substantial evidence in the record to support the legal need for further environmental study; (iii) the local agency requires further environmental study; and (iv) the local agency does not make a lawful determination, as defined, on the applicable CEQA document within 90 days of timely written notice from the applicant, as specified.

AB 1633 includes a limited exception to enforcement where a court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1485 — STATE ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING LAWS

AB 1485 (Haney) granted the California Attorney General the “unconditional right to intervene” in lawsuits enforcing state housing laws, whether intervening in an independent capacity or pursuant to a notice of referral from HCD. Under prior law, the Attorney General and HCD were required to petition the court to be granted intervenor status and join a lawsuit, which can be a “lengthy and onerous process.”

PART II: PENDING STATE HOUSING LAWS

Various state housing bills are currently making their way through the State Legislature that are expected to benefit mixed-income multifamily housing developers. AB 2243 (Wicks) would amend AB 2011 (the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022). AB 1893 (Wicks) and AB 1886 (Wicks and Alvarez) would amend Builder’s Remedy provisions under the HAA. AB 2560 (Alvarez) and SB 951 (Wiener) would help facilitate housing development in the coastal zone. AB 3068 (Haney) would provide for the streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval of qualifying adaptive reuse projects involving the conversion of an existing building to residential or mixed-uses. SB 1227 (Wiener) would help facilitate middle-income housing and other projects in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone.

The following summaries reflect the status of the legislation as of May 15, 2024. The legislative process is ongoing and future amendments are expected.

ASSEMBLY BILL 2243 — AB 2011 AMENDMENTS

AB 2243 (Wicks) would amend AB 2011 (operative as of July 1, 2023). As explained in our prior legal alert, AB 2011 provides for “by right” streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA, no discretion) approval of qualifying mixed-income and affordable housing development projects along commercial corridors in zoning districts where office, retail, and/or parking uses are principally permitted.

As currently proposed, AB 2243 would:

Project Review and Approval
  • Require the local government to approve the AB 2011 project within a specified timeframe. Once the project is deemed to be consistent with applicable objective planning standards, the local government would be required to approve the project within 180 days (for projects with more than 150 housing units) or 90 days (for projects with 150 or fewer housing units).
  • Require the local government to determine project consistency or inconsistency with applicable objective planning standards within 30 days when a project is resubmitted to address written feedback. The otherwise applicable timeframe is within 60 or 90 days, with the longer timeframe applying to projects with more than 150 housing units.
  • Provide that a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law, including related incentives, concessions and/or waivers, “shall not cause the project to be subject to a local discretionary government review process” even if the requested incentives, concessions and/or waivers are not specified in a local ordinance. This is important because some local governments purport to require discretionary approval for specified “off menu” incentives, concessions and waivers despite the fact that AB 2011 provides for a ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) project approval process and specifically contemplates utilization of the State Density Bonus Law in conjunction with AB 2011.
  • Provide that the Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) requirement would be imposed as a condition of project approval versus prior to project approval. If any remedial action is required due to the presence of hazardous substances on the project site, that would need to occur prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (as specified).
Residential Density
  • Provide that the AB 2011 (base) residential density, which varies depending on the location and size of the project site, is now the “allowable” density (prior to any density bonus) instead of a minimum (“meet or exceed”) density requirement.
  • Impose a new minimum residential density requirement, which would be 75% of the greater of the applicable “allowable” residential density.
  • Specify that the imposition of applicable objective planning standards shall not preclude the “required” (minimum) AB 2011 residential density (prior to any density bonus) or require a reduction in unit sizes. It appears that this new provision is instead intended to apply to the “allowable” AB 2011 residential density pursuant to the cross-referenced subsections.
Commercial Corridor Frontage Requirements
  • Revise the definition for “commercial corridor” based on the applicable height limit. Where local zoning sets a height limit for the project site of less than 65 feet, the right-of-way would need to be at least 70 feet, which is the current AB 2011 requirement. For all other project sites, the right-of-way would now only need to be at least 50 feet.
  • Clarifies that the width of the right-of-way includes sidewalks for purposes of determining whether it is a “commercial corridor.”
  • Expand eligible sites to include conversions of “existing office buildings” that meet all other AB 2011 requirements, even if they are not on a commercial corridor.
Project Site Size Requirements
  • Waive the current 20-acre project site size limitation for “regional malls” that are up to 100 Regional malls is defined to include malls where (i) the permitted uses on the site include at least 250,000 square feet of retail, (ii) at least two-thirds of the permitted uses on the site are retail, and (iii) at least two of the permitted retail uses on the site are at least 10,000 square feet. Additional criteria for the redevelopment of regional mall sites is expected to be added to the bill.
Setback Requirements
  • Provide that density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers permitted under the State Density Bonus Law may be utilized to deviate from specified AB 2011 setback requirements related to existing adjacent residential uses. The HCD previously opined that under existing AB 2011, only the AB 2011 height and density maximums can be modified via the density bonus approval process.
Freeway, Industrial Use, & Oil/Natural Gas Facility Proximity
  • Eliminate the freeway proximity and active oil/natural gas facility proximity prohibitions and replace those with specified air filtration media requirements.
  • Revise the AB 2011 limitation on project sites dedicated to industrial uses. Currently, project sites are disqualified where more than one-third of the square footage is dedicated to industrial use or the project site adjoins a site exceeding that threshold. “Dedicated to industrial use” would no longer include sites (i) where the most recently permitted use was industrial, but that use has not existed on the site for over three years; or (ii) where the site is designated industrial by the general plan, but residential uses are a principally permitted use on the site or the site adjoins an existing residential use.
  • Revise the definition of “freeway” to specify that freeway on-ramps and off-ramps are not included.
Coastal Zone Projects
  • Newly prohibit AB 2011 projects in the coastal zone that do not meet SB 35 coastal zone siting requirements (as recently amended by SB 423) under Government Code section 4(a)(6), exclusive of the requirement for the project site to be zoned for multifamily housing (since AB 2011 allows for multifamily housing on commercially zoned properties), including (but not limited to) where the applicable area of the coastal zone is not subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan.
  • Provide that the public agency with coastal development permitting authority, as applicable, shall approve the permit if it determines that the project is consistent with all objective standards of the local government’s certified local coastal program or certified land use plan, as applicable.
  • Provide that any density bonus, concession, incentive, waiver, and/or (reduced) parking ratios granted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law “shall not constitute a basis to find the project inconsistent with the local coastal program.”
Residential Conversion Projects
  • Eliminate the residential density limit for the conversion of existing buildings to residential use, except where the project would include net new square footage exceeding 20% of the “overall square footage of the project.”
  • Prohibit the local government from requiring common open space beyond “what is required for the existing project site” versus required pursuant to the objective standards that would otherwise apply pursuant to the closest zoning district that allows for the AB 2011 residential (base) density, where applicable.
  • Exempt the conversion of “existing office buildings” from the commercial corridor frontage requirement.
Clarifications
  • Clarify that the AB 2011 on-site affordable housing requirement only applies to new housing units created by the project.
  • Clarify that the number of on-site affordable housing units required under AB 2011 is based on number of housing units in the project prior to any density bonus (i.e., the “base” project), which is consistent with the State Density Bonus Law.
  • Clarify the process for calculating the on-site affordable housing requirement under AB 2011 where the local jurisdiction requires a higher percentage of affordable units and/or a deeper level of affordability.
  • Clarify that the “allowable” density under AB 2011 is calculated prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law.
  • Clarify that “urban uses” includes a public park that is surrounded by other urban uses.
Implications

AB 2243 would make important clarifications in advance of the to-be-provided HCD guidance document on the implementation of AB 2011. The bill would make important amendments to the prior freeway and oil/natural gas facility proximity prohibitions by instead requiring installation of air filtration media, consistent with Senate Bill 4 (Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023). The bill would also help facilitate AB 2011 projects in specified coastal zone areas. Under existing law, a qualifying AB 2011 project would be subject to streamlined ministerial approval at the local level, but not by the Coastal Commission, which could separately trigger a discretionary (i.e., CEQA) review and approval process. AB 2243 partially addresses that, but only in qualifying coastal zone areas (pursuant to SB 423, as modified) that are subject to a certified local coastal program or certified land use plan, which excludes various coastal zone areas.

ASSEMBLY BILL 2560 & SENATE BILL 951 — COASTAL ZONE PROJECTS

Assembly Bill 2560

AB 2560 (Alvarez) would amend the State Density Bonus Law to partially address coastal zone projects. Currently, the State Density Bonus Law explicitly provides that it “does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976” (Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq.). As currently proposed, AB 2560 would revise that provision to instead provide that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers, or reductions of development standards, and (reduced) parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the State Density Bonus Law “shall be permitted notwithstanding the California Coastal Act of 1976” but only if the development is not located on a site that is any of the following:

  • An area of the coastal zone that is not subject to a certified local coastal program
  • An area of the coastal zone subject to paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code (i.e., within a specified distance of the sea, estuary, stream, coastal bluff, tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, or sensitive coastal resources area)
  • An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment
  • A parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily housing
  • A parcel in the coastal zone and located on either of the following: (i) on, or within a 100-foot radius of, a wetland, as defined in Section 30121 of the Public Resources Code or (ii) on prime agricultural land, as defined in Sections 30113 and 30241 of the Public Resources Code
Implications

AB 2560 should help facilitate density bonus projects in coastal zone areas, but the coastal zone area would need to be subject to a certified local coastal program (versus either that or a certified land use plan pursuant to SB 423). Again, that excludes various coastal zone areas.

Senate Bill 951

SB 951 (Wiener) would amend the State Housing Element Law (Government Code § 65580 et seq.). Existing law requires rezoning by a local government, including adoption of minimum density and development standards (as specified), when the local government’s Housing Element site inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the applicable state mandated RHNA. As currently proposed, SB 951 would require local governments in the coastal zone to make “any necessary local coastal program updates” to meet the applicable RHNA.

SB 951 would also amend the California Coastal Act to target the City and County of San Francisco. Existing law provides that approval of a coastal development permit by a “coastal county” with a certified local coastal program may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission under specified circumstances, including where the approved use is not “the principal permitted use” under the local zoning ordinance or zoning map. As currently proposed, SB 351 would provide that for purposes of that provision, “coastal county” does not include a local government that is both a city and county.

Implications

SB 951 would effectively require consistency between local coastal programs and any upzoning or rezoning required under State Housing Element Law. The appealability of coastal zone permits approved by the City and County of San Francisco would also be limited by the bill, which could help facilitate new housing development projects.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1893 & ASSEMBLY BILL 1886 — BUILDER’S REMEDY AMENDMENTS

As explained in our prior legal alert, the Builder’s Remedy applies when a local jurisdiction has not adopted an updated Housing Element in compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65580, et seq.), in which case the local jurisdiction cannot deny a qualifying housing development project even if it is inconsistent with the local general plan and zoning ordinance (subject to limited exceptions).

To qualify for the Builder’s Remedy, the project must currently (i) fall under the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA (i.e., a project consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or transitional or supportive housing) and (ii) dedicate at least 20% of the dwelling units in the project as lower income (or 100% of the units as moderate income), as defined in the HAA.

Assembly Bill 1893

As currently proposed, AB 1893 would (i) reduce the required percentage of affordable units for mixed-income Builder’s Remedy projects from 20% lower income to 10% very low-income; (ii) impose new size and location guardrails on Builder’s Remedy projects; and (iii) authorize local jurisdictions to require compliance with other specified objective development standards so long as they do not reduce the “allowed” residential density or result in an increase in “actual costs.” AB 1893 would also eliminate the affordability requirement for Builder’s Remedy projects consisting of 10 units or fewer, so long as the project site is smaller than one acre with a minimum density of 10 units per acre.

New Basis for Denial & New Project Requirements

AB 1893 would significantly amend the most controversial component of the Builder’s Remedy, which is that a local jurisdiction without a substantially compliant Housing Element (“Non-Compliant Jurisdiction”) cannot deny a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project unless specified findings are made, which are intended to create a high threshold for denial by local jurisdictions.

As currently proposed, AB 1893 would newly authorize a Non-Compliant Jurisdiction to deny a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project if the project fails to meet any of the following “objective” standards. In other words, Builder’s Remedy projects would need to meet all the following new requirements (unless the project is “grandfathered” as explained below):

  • The project site must be designated by the general plan or located in a zone where housing, retail, office, or parking are “permissible” uses. Alternatively, if the project site is designated or zoned for agricultural use, at least 75% of the perimeter of the project site must adjoin parcels that are developed with urban uses, as defined under AB 2011. Recall that AB 2243 would amend the AB 2011 definition of “urban use” to clarify that urban use includes a public park that is surrounded by other urban uses.
  • The project site must not be on a site or adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is “dedicated to industrial use,” as defined under AB 2011. Recall that AB 2243 would amend the AB 2011 definition of “dedicated to industrial use” to no longer include sites (i) where the most recently permitted use was industrial, but that use has not existed on the site for over three years; or (ii) where the site is designated industrial by the general plan, but residential uses are a principally permitted use on the site or the site adjoins an existing residential use.
  • The residential density for the project must not exceed the “greatest” of the following density calculations, as applicable, prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law (there is no codified limit under existing law):
    • For project sites within “high or highest resource census tracts” (as defined): (i) 50% greater than the “maximum” density deemed appropriate to accommodate (lower income) housing for the local jurisdiction as specified in Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) (e.g., for a local jurisdiction in a metropolitan county, “at least” 30 dwelling units per acre); or (ii) three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law (prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law), whichever is greater.
    • For other project sites, (i) the “maximum” density appropriate to accommodate (lower income) housing for the local jurisdiction as specified in Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) (see above); or (ii) twice the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law (prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law), whichever is greater.
    • For project sites located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, up to 35 dwelling units per acre more than the “amount allowable” specified above, as applicable.
    • The project must comply with “other” objective development standards (as defined) imposed by the local jurisdiction that apply in closest zone in the local jurisdiction for multi-family residential use at the “allowed” residential density If no such zone exists, the applicable objective standards shall be those for the zone that allows the greatest density within the city, county, or city and county, as applicable.

AB 1893 would provide that in no case may the local agency apply any objective development standards that will (i) have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project at the “allowed” residential density (see above) or (ii) result in an increase in “actual costs.” The local agency would bear the burden of proof under these circumstances.

Project “Grandfathering”

As currently proposed, the foregoing new requirements would not apply to Builder’s Remedy applications that are “deemed complete” on or before April 1, 2024. Under existing law, “deemed complete” is defined to mean that the applicant has submitted a SB 330 preliminary application or, if that has not been submitted, a complete development application (as defined) has been submitted. AB 1893 would add that the local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the applicable application is not complete.

Implications

AB 1893 is an attempt to “modernize” the Builder’s Remedy by providing clarity to developers, local jurisdictions, and courts to avoid the “legal limbo” described by Attorney General Rob Bonta. As part of that compromise, significant new requirements would be imposed on Builder’s Remedy projects, including a new “cap” on residential density where no codified limit currently exists. In return, the clarifications made by AB 1893 and the reduced affordability requirement for mixed-income projects could help facilitate Builder’s Remedy projects in Non-Compliant Jurisdictions.

Assembly Bill 1886

A recent Builder’s Remedy lawsuit exposed some ambiguity regarding when a Housing Element is deemed “substantially compliant“ with State Housing Element Law. Opposing sides of the litigation disputed where (retroactive) self-certification by the local jurisdiction was sufficient. The court ruled that it was not. See our prior legal alert for our coverage of this ruling, which appears to be the impetus for the amendments proposed under AB 1886 (Alvarez and Wicks).

As currently proposed, AB 1886 would:

  • Clarify the point at which a Housing Element is deemed substantially compliant with State Housing Element Law: (i) the Housing Element has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and (ii) the local jurisdiction has received an affirmative determination of substantial compliance from HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • Clarify that the Housing Element shall continue to be considered in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law until either: (i) HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the adopted Housing Element is no longer in substantial compliance (e.g., where any required rezoning is not approved in a timely manner) or (ii) the end of the applicable Housing Element cycle.
  • Specify that Housing Element compliance status is determined at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application is submitted for the qualifying Builder’s Remedy project, which is consistent with HCD’s prior determination that the Builder’s Remedy is vested on that filing date. If a SB 330 Preliminary Application is not submitted, then the compliance status would be determined when a complete development application (as defined) is filed for the Builder’s Remedy project.
    • Require a local jurisdiction that adopted its Housing Element despite HCD’s non-compliance determination to submit the required findings, as specified, to HCD. In any legal proceeding initiated to enforce the HAA, HCD’s determination on the required findings would create a rebuttable presumption of substantial compliance or lack thereof.
Implications

AB 1886 would make it clear that a local jurisdiction cannot “self-certify” its Housing Element. Rather, an affirmative determination must be granted by HCD or, if a local jurisdiction adopts its Housing Element notwithstanding HCD’s determination to the contrary, a court of competent jurisdiction would need to agree with the local jurisdiction, notwithstanding the “rebuttable presumption” in favor of HCD’s non-compliance determination, where applicable.

ASSEMBLY BILL 3068 — ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS

AB 3068 (Haney, Quirk-Silva, and Wicks) would provide for the streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval of qualifying adaptive reuse projects involving the conversion of an existing building to residential or mixed-uses, as specified. Qualifying adaptive reuse projects would be deemed “a use by right” regardless of the applicable zoning district, with the exception of any proposed non-residential uses.

As currently proposed, the following requirements would need to be met:

Threshold Requirements
  • The project must retrofit and repurpose an existing building to create new residential or mixed-uses (Adaptive Reuse). The Adaptive Reuse of light industrial buildings is prohibited unless the local planning director (or equivalent) determines that the “specific light industrial use is no longer useful for industrial purposes.”
  • At least 50% of the Adaptive Reuse project must be designated for residential use, which is defined to include housing units, dormitories, boarding houses, and group housing. For purposes of calculating total project square footage, underground spaces, including basements or underground parking garages, are excluded.
  • Any nonresidential uses must be “consistent with the land uses allowed by the zoning or a continuation of an existing zoning nonconforming use.”
  • If the existing building is a listed historic resource or is over 50 years old, specified requirements must be met.
Affordability Requirements
  • For rental projects, either (i) 15% of the units must be lower income (as defined) or (ii) 8% of the units must be very low income and 5% of the units must be extremely low income (as defined), unless different local requirements apply.
  • For ownership projects, either (i) 15% of the units must be lower income (as defined) or (ii) 30% of the units must be moderate income (as defined), unless different local requirements apply.
  • Where different local requirements apply, the project must include the higher percentage requirement and the lowest income target, unless local requirements require greater than 15% lower income units (only), in which case other specified requirements apply.
  • For rental projects, the affordable units must be restricted for 55 years and for ownership projects, the affordable units must be restricted for 45 years.
  • Affordable units in the project must have the same bedroom and bathroom count ratio as the market rate units, be equitably distributed within the project, and have the same type or quality of appliances, fixtures, and finishes.
Project Site Requirements
  • The Adaptive Reuse project site must be in an urbanized area or urban cluster (as defined and specified) and at least 75% of the perimeter must adjoin (as defined) parcels that are developed with urban uses (not defined in AB 3068 but separately defined in AB 2011).
  • Required Phase I ESA and if a recognized environmental condition is found, specified requirements must be met.
Labor Requirements
  • All construction workers must be paid at least the general prevailing wage of per diem wages for the type of work in the geographic area (as specified), except that apprentices registered in approved programs (as specified) may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
  • The prevailing wage requirement must be included in all construction contracts, and all contractors and subcontractors must comply with specified requirements.
  • If the Adaptive Reuse project would include 50 or more dwelling units, additional requirements would apply (as specified), including but not limited to participation in an approved apprenticeship program and health care expenditures for any construction craft employees.
Project Approval Process
  • If the Adaptive Reuse project is determined by the local planning director (or equivalent) to be consistent with the foregoing requirements (referred to collectively as “objective planning standards”), the local agency must approve the project. That consistency determination must be based on whether there is “substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent with the objective planning standards.”
  • If the project is deemed to conflict with any applicable objective planning standards, the local agency must notify the project sponsor within 60 to 90 days of submittal of the development proposal, depending on whether the project contains more than 150 dwelling units. If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation (as specified), the project shall be deemed to satisfy applicable objective planning
  • Design review may be conducted by the local agency but must be objective (as specified) and must be concluded within 90 to 180 days of submittal of the development proposal, depending on whether the project contains more than 150 dwelling units.
Development Impact Fees

Adaptive Reuse projects would be exempt from all development impact fees “that are not directly related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site from nonresidential to residential or mixed-use” and any development impact fees charged must be “proportional to the difference in impacts caused by the change of use.” The project sponsor may also request that payment of development impact fees be deferred to the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued, subject to a written agreement to pay the development impact fees at that time.

Adjacent Projects

A qualifying Adaptive Reuse project “may include the development of new residential or mixed-use structures on undeveloped areas and parking areas on the parcels adjacent to the proposed adaptive reuse project site” if specified requirements are met.

Implications

AB 3068 would be another tool in the growing toolbox available to real estate developers to encourage the adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial buildings, including office buildings. Financial feasibility is likely to remain an issue due to high interest rates and construction costs. There are well-documented design challenges associated with the conversion of existing buildings to residential use due to required compliance with the strict provisions of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code, and local amendments to those codes. Even if alternate buildings standards are available for adaptive reuse projects (see the directive under AB 529), it not clear yet whether alternative standards would be available for required seismic upgrades, which are often cost-prohibitive.

Financial feasibility would be partially addressed by AB 3068, which would authorize local agencies to establish an Adaptive Reuse Investment Program funded by ad valorem property tax revenues (as specified), which could be transferred to the owners of qualifying Adaptive Reuse projects for the purpose of subsidizing the on-site affordable housing units required by AB 3068. The bill would also “align program requirements to encourage the utilization of existing programs such as the Federal Historic Tax Credit, the newly adopted California Historic Tax Credit, the Mills Act, and the California Historical Building Code.”

SB 1227 — SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION ZONE PROJECTS

SB 1227 (Wiener) aims to speed the recovery of downtown San Francisco by creating a new CEQA exemption for qualifying student housing and mixed-use residential projects (along with commercial and institutional projects) in the Downtown Revitalization Zone, which includes the Financial District, Union Square, Eastern SOMA, Mid-Market, and Civic Center neighborhoods. Projects that do not meet all the requirements for the new CEQA exemption could qualify for the new CEQA streamlining process proposed under the bill. SB 1227 would also create a new property tax exemption for moderate-income housing in the Downtown Revitalization Zone.

Qualifying Downtown Revitalization Zone Projects

As currently proposed, the following threshold requirements would need to be met:

  • The project site must be in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone.
  • The general plan land use and zoning designations for the project site must allow for commercial, institutional, student housing, or mixed-uses (as specified below), as applicable to the project.
  • The project must not include any hotel uses, and if residential uses are proposed, the residential square footage must be less than two-thirds the total project square footage (i.e., the project cannot be a “housing development project” already protected under the HAA). The foregoing square footage limitation (see specified calculation requirements) would not apply to student housing.
  • To the extent that residential uses are proposed, the project must comply with applicable San Francisco inclusionary affordable housing requirements.
  • The project must not require the demolition of restricted affordable units, rent-controlled units, or a hotel (as specified). See also the specific requirements that apply to other existing and prior tenant-occupied housing.
  • The project must comply with 24 enumerated San Francisco ordinances related to development impact fees and environmental protection (including but not limited to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and water and energy consumption) and specified provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code.
  • The project site must not be environmentally sensitive, e.g., a delineated earthquake fault zone, habitat for protected species, or a hazardous waste site (as defined and specified).
  • The project must not result in net additional emissions of greenhouse gases from demolition or construction.
New CEQA Exemption

As currently proposed, the following additional requirements would need to be met to qualify for the new CEQA exemption:

  • Prevailing wage, skilled and trained workforce, and/or health care expenditure and apprenticeship requirements must be met (as specified), depending on the size of the project.
  • The project must not include any warehouse uses.
  • The project must not require the demolition of a building that is over 75 years old (regardless of its historic status) or result in “substantial harm” to a building on a federal, state, or local historic registry.
  • The project must be LEED Platinum certified (if over 1,000 square feet).
  • The project must be in an area with a per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) level 15% lower than the city or regional VMT.
New CEQA Streamlining Pathway

As currently proposed, San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone projects that meet the threshold requirements above, but not all of the additional requirements for the new CEQA exemption, could instead pursue CEQA streamlining whereby the project could be certified by the Governor prior to certification of an EIR for the project pursuant to the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021 (Leadership Act), which authorizes the Governor to certify qualifying projects (before January 1, 2032) for CEQA streamlining. One of the benefits of CEQA streamlining under the Leadership Act is that any CEQA litigation must be resolved (to the extent feasible) within 270 days, as specified.

As currently proposed, the following additional requirements would need to be met to qualify for CEQA streamlining:

  • Prevailing wage, skilled, and trained workforce requirements must be met (as specified).
  • The project must be at least LEED Gold certified (versus Platinum) if the project contains residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational uses.
  • The project must not demolish a historic structure that is placed on a national, state, or local historic register (versus a building that is over 75 years old, regardless of its historic status).
  • The project must avoid a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical or cultural resource.
  • The project must avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts in a disadvantaged community (as defined) and any required mitigation measures must be undertaken in, and directly benefit, the affected community.
  • The project must not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA that would require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the lead agency.
  • The lead agency must approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2031.

Please see the text of SB 1227 for more information about the proposed CEQA streamlining provisions for qualifying San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone projects.

New Property Tax Exemption for Moderate-Income Housing

This new (welfare) property tax exemption would allow for a partial exemption equal to the percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage of the number of units serving moderate-income households. As currently proposed, the following requirements would need to be met to qualify:

  • The project must be in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone.
  • The project must include moderate-income rental units, as defined and specified.
  • The project must be owned and operated by a charitable organization (as defined), which includes (but is not limited to) limited partnerships in which the managing partner is an eligible nonprofit corporation or eligible limited liability company meeting specified requirements.
  • A building permit or site permit for the residential units on the property must be filed before January 1, 2035, and the property owner must claim the exemption within five years following the issuance of the first building permit. The new property tax exemption would also apply with respect to lien dates occurring on or after January 1, 2025.
Implications

SB 1227 should help facilitate the development of new housing for the “missing in the middle” in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone by providing for a new property tax exemption for projects that include moderate-income rental units. That could in turn help increase the financial feasibility of converting underutilized commercial buildings to mixed-uses, including residential uses.

SB 1227 would impose robust labor requirements for both the new CEQA exemption and CEQA streamlining pathway for qualifying projects in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone, which could inhibit the utilization of those benefits.

© 2010-2024 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more news on California State Housing Laws, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

EPA, USDA, and FDA to Clarify Overlapping Biotechnology Regulatory Frameworks

On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a joint plan to identify areas of ambiguity, gaps, or uncertainty in their coordinated regulation of biotechnology products. Consistent with a directive issued by President Biden in September 2022, the agencies’ plan identifies specific issues that each has either recently addressed or will work to address to promote such products’ safe use.

Key Takeaways

  • What Happened: EPA, USDA, and FDA issued a joint plan for regulatory reform under their Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.
  • Who’s Impacted: Developers of PIPs, modified mosquitos, biopesticides, and other biotechnology products under EPA’s jurisdiction.
  • What Should They Consider Doing in Response: Watch the three agencies’ regulatory dockets closely and consider submitting comments once new rules or draft guidance are published that may affect their products.

Background

President Biden’s executive order defined “biotechnology” as “technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.” Biotechnology products thus may include organisms (plants, animals, fungi, or microbes) developed through genetic engineering or manipulation, products derived from such organisms, and products produced via cell-free synthesis. These products may, in turn, be regulated under the overlapping statutory frameworks of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), Plant Pest Act (PPA), Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, and more. Therefore, close coordination between EPA, USDA, and FDA is essential to ensure effective and efficient regulation of biotechnology products.

EPA Sets Sights on PIPs, Mosquitos, and Biopesticide Products

The agencies’ newly released plan identifies five biotechnology product categories where regulatory clarification or simplification are warranted: (1) modified plants; (2) modified animals; (3) modified microorganisms; (4) human drugs, biologics, and medical devices; and (5) cross-cutting issues. Under the new plan, EPA is engaged in all but the fourth category above.

For example, EPA has already taken steps to clarify its regulation of modified plant products, such as exempting from regulation under FIFRA and FFDCA certain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created in plants using newer technologies. EPA next plans to address the scope of plant regulator PIPs and update its 2007 guidance on small-scale field testing of PIPs to reflect technological developments and harmonize with USDA containment measures.

Regarding modified animal products, EPA intends to work with USDA and FDA to coordinate and provide updated information on the regulation of modified insect and invertebrate pests. Specifically, EPA intends to provide efficacy testing guidance on genetically modified mosquitos intended for population control. As outlined in guidance published by FDA in October 2017, products intended to reduce the population of mosquitoes by killing them or interfering with their growth or development are considered “pesticides” subject to regulation by EPA, while products intended to reduce the virus/pathogen load within mosquitoes or prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals are considered “new animal drugs” subject to regulation by FDA.

EPA also now intends to prioritize its review of biopesticide applications, provide technical assistance to biopesticide developers, and collaborate with state pesticide regulators to help bring new biopesticide products to market more quickly.

Further, the three agencies are making efforts to collaborate with each other and with the regulated community. The agencies jointly released plain-language information on regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes for biotechnology products in November 2023 and now intend to explore the development of a web portal that would direct developers to the appropriate agency or office overseeing their product’s development or regulatory status. The agencies also intend to develop a mechanism for a product developer to meet with all agencies at once early in a product’s development process to clarify the agencies’ respective jurisdictions and provide initial regulatory guidance; to update their joint information-sharing memorandum of understanding; and to formally update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology by the end of the year.

Biotechnology product developers should closely monitor EPA, USDA, and FDA’s progress on the actions described above, as well as other USDA- and FDA-specific regulatory moves. Developers should assess the regulatory barriers to their products’ entry to market, consider potential fixes, and be prepared to submit feedback as the agencies propose new rules or issue draft guidance for comment.

© 2024 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more news on EPA, USDA, and FDA guidance, visit the NLR Administrative & Regulatory section.

House and Senate Hold Hearings on EPA’s FY 2025 Budget Request

On April 30, 2024, the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a hearing on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 budget request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies held a separate hearing on EPA’s FY 2025 budget request on May 1, 2024, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held its own hearing on May 8, 2024. On May 15, 2024, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials held a hearing. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan testified before both of the House Subcommittees, the Senate Subcommittee, and the Senate Committee (written testimony is hyperlinked).

April 30, 2024, House Subcommittee Hearing

During the April 30, 2024, House Subcommittee hearing, Ranking Member Chellie Pingree (D-ME) asked for an update on EPA’s risk assessment of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in biosolids. Regan stated that EPA is working on issuing it in final in 2024, and it will include a focus on certain PFAS to help EPA understand better the specific risks posed to farmers and the uptake in crops and livestock. Regan noted that EPA is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to research the risk from biosolids application. EPA intends to hold the polluters responsible for the PFAS accountable and does not want farmers, water systems, or taxpayers in affected communities to bear the burden of the contamination.

As reported in our November 3, 2023, blog item, on November 2, 2023, EPA announced that it granted a petition filed under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to address the use of the chemical N-(1,3-Dimethylbutyl)-N′-phenyl-p-phenylenediamine (6PPD) in tires. Representative Derek Kilmer (D-WA) asked whether EPA still planned to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) under TSCA Section 6 by the end of 2024 to obtain more information to inform a subsequent regulatory action. Regan stated that EPA expects to issue the ANPRM by fall 2024.

May 1, 2024, Senate Subcommittee Hearing

During the May 1, 2024, Senate Subcommittee hearing, Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) asked Regan to explain how EPA will address PFAS contamination under the FY 2025 budget request. Regan noted that EPA recently issued its first-ever National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR), which will reduce PFAS exposure to over 100 million people. EPA also announced grants available to help smaller communities comply with the NPDWR. According to Regan, EPA needs the resources and staff to have a comprehensive approach to protect water quality from PFAS. Regan stated that EPA would use the funding to continue to collect scientific evidence and to study how to design technology and health-based standards to protect as many people as possible from different forms of PFAS.

Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) noted that during a 2023 Senate hearing, Regan testified that EPA had an additional 29 PFAS on its radar for a similar drinking water update and asked Regan about the status of the rulemaking. Regan stated that through the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, EPA is monitoring drinking water in communities across the United Sates for these 29 PFAS and that EPA intends to pursue regulation for these PFAS.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked Regan about the key funding increases included in the FY 2025 budget request for some of EPA’s core programs. Regan stated that the increases are intended to allow EPA to keep up with recent progress that it has made. While EPA recently issued the NPDWR for six PFAS, there are an additional 29 PFAS being monitored, and thousands more. EPA wants to ensure the safety of chemicals before they hit the market, and that is one of the places where EPA has a deficit in terms of staffing. According to Regan, EPA is getting more requests from agricultural communities about herbicides and pesticides.

Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) stated that EPA’s recent Endangered Species Act (ESA) proposals, such as the Herbicide Strategy, could impose hundreds of millions of dollars in new restrictions on farmers. Britt asked Regan how EPA would implement Congress’s bipartisan instructions in the FY 2024 appropriations report to consider best available data on pesticide usage, conservation practices, and real-world studies on spray drift and water concentrations. Regan testified that previous EPA decisions spanning decades and court rulings have put EPA in a precarious position. According to Regan, EPA is speaking with the farming and agricultural community and has come up with strategies that have received positive feedback. Britt asked whether EPA would consider appointing designated non-federal representatives to help EPA meet its ESA responsibilities. Regan responded that EPA needs more staff and resources to respond to court decisions and that the particular EPA office is down to levels from the early 2000s. Regan stated that he would need to talk through the use of non-federal representatives and agreed to discuss the issue with Britt.

Subcommittee Chair Jeff Merkley (D-OR) asked Regan what Congress can do to accelerate a solution to replace 6PPD with something that works as well without harming salmon. Regan stated that EPA intends to publish an ANPRM by fall 2024 and that EPA is also researching mitigation efforts to fill in the gap until it can take regulatory action.

Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) noted that in its FY 2024 budget request, EPA proposed a significant decrease in discretionary funding because of new revenues coming in from the Superfund tax, while the FY 2025 request includes additional funding for the program. Murkowski asked Regan for his view of the long-term funding outlook for the Superfund program. Regan testified that the tax collections for the first two years were lower than forecasted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Because of the gap, for FY 2025, EPA has requested additional funding.

May 8, 2024, Senate Committee Hearing

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) described EPA’s designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as flawed, stating that this would place the financial burden on passive receivers such as water utilities. More information on the designation and on EPA’s PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under CERCLA is available in our April 23, 2024, memorandum.

Committee Chair Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) asked Regan to describe the impact that the FY 2024 funding levels had on the TSCA program and what EPA could accomplish if it received the full amount requested in the FY 2025 budget request and maximized revenue collection through the recently updated TSCA fees rule. Regan stated that EPA received a small increase for TSCA in the FY 2022 and 2023 budgets, and it more than doubled the number of chemical reviews that it did each month. Without the funding in the FY 2025 budget request, EPA will see slower approval of new chemistries, especially for those companies in the semi-conductor, automotive, and battery sectors.

May 15, 2024, House Subcommittee Hearing

During the hearing held by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials, Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY) asked Regan what EPA is doing to address the backlog of new chemical reviews and what Congress can do to support EPA. Regan stated that with the budget increases that EPA received in 2022 and 2023, it more than doubled the number of new chemicals reviewed each month. According to Regan, EPA has reduced the backlog by half and prioritized new chemistries for the semi-conductor, automotive, and battery manufacturing sectors. According to Regan, without the funding in the FY 2025 budget request, EPA will see slower approval of new chemicals.

Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, noted that the reinstated Superfund tax has brought in lower receipts than projected by the Treasury and asked how EPA is adapting to the difference between the Treasury’s forecast and the actual funds collected. Regan testified that EPA is working with the Treasury Department to refine its estimates. According to Regan, the $300 million in the FY 2025 budget request will fill in the gap between the projected and actual tax receipts. Without the additional funding, Regan stated that there would be a slowdown in EPA’s ability to clean up Superfund sites. Pallone then asked Regan what the designation of PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances and EPA’s enforcement policy mean for different sectors. Regan responded that EPA is focused on the manufacturers responsible for the PFAS and will not pursue enforcement actions against sectors such as farmers or water systems.

Representative Randy Weber (R-TX) asked about EPA’s final rule amending the TSCA risk evaluation framework and its removal of the definition of “best available science.” Regan stated that he would have to get more context to respond to Weber. More information on EPA’s final rule is available in our May 14, 2024, memorandum.

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) asked Regan to comment on the almost 400 premanufacture notifications (PMN) awaiting a risk determination and the more than 90 percent that have passed the statutory deadline of 90 days. According to Regan, the issue predates the Biden-Harris Administration. Regan repeated that with the additional resources from Congress in 2022 and 2023, EPA has more than doubled the reviews completed each month.

Representative John Curtis (R-UT) noted that applications in EPA’s New Chemicals Program have dropped from 600 annually to just over 200 and that in the last two calendar years, EPA made 95 and 101 determinations, respectively. According to Curtis, although EPA is required by law to return fees if it misses deadlines, it has never returned the fee to an applicant when EPA has missed the deadline because applicants coincidentally suspend or withdraw their applications before the deadline. Curtis asked Regan to explain the coincidence of PMNs being suspended or withdrawn just in time to allow EPA to keep the money. Regan stated that he was unaware that applications were being withdrawn from EPA and committed to looking into it. Curtis stated that he has been told that EPA has effectively threatened applicants by phone to suspend or withdraw their applications and stated he would like Regan to look into this and report back. Regan committed to doing so. Curtis followed up by asking about EPA’s assumption that it can charge user fees covering 25 percent of the TSCA program’s budget, regardless of the cost. Regan responded that he is not sure that he agrees with the premise and that he needs to look at EPA’s performance with the budget that it did receive. Regan agreed to have a deeper conversation with Curtis on the topic.

Commentary

The hearings for EPA’s FY 2025 budget request were similar to the hearings for EPA’s FY 2024 budget request. Republicans pressed EPA on why it needs additional funding, criticizing the cost and reach of its current rulemakings, while Regan highlighted EPA’s obligations under federal statutes, including the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, TSCA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the ESA, as well as recent court decisions. On balance, no new information emerged.

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more news on EPA’s 2025 Budget Request, visit the Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

CEQ Finalizes “Phase 2” Revisions to NEPA Implementing Regulations

The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) is tasked with issuing National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) regulations to guide federal agencies in its implementation. In 2021, CEQ began a two-phase process to revise these regulations. “Phase 1” largely reversed several changes made to the regulations in 2020 under the prior Trump Administration, including key changes relating to defining “purpose and need” and the long-used concepts of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The new “Phase 2” revisions are more extensive. Some of the Phase 2 revisions codify in regulation amendments to NEPA made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (“FRA”) and intended to improve the efficiency of the NEPA process, such as establishing page limits for environmental documents and facilitating the use of categorical exclusions (“CEs”). The Phase 2 revisions also restore additional concepts or provisions from the 1978 regulations and case law interpreting those regulations, remove additional changes made in 2020 that CEQ now “considers imprudent,” and, for the first time, specifically require consideration of effects relevant to environmental justice and climate change. We highlight some of these changes below.

The Phase 2 Final Rule will impact a broad range of projects needing federal authorizations or funding. Many of the efficiency measures included in the Final Rule implement changes that were enacted in the FRA. Although these changes could help address some long-standing issues in the NEPA process around delays and litigation, the effect of the proposed changes will be highly dependent on how the individual federal agencies carry out the changes through their own procedures and implementing regulations. Moreover, the Phase 2 Final Rule makes other important changes to the regulations that, rather than streamlining and improving efficiency, could increase burdens and challenges associated with NEPA compliance.

The Phase 2 Final Rule is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2024. However, industry groups and others already have signaled their frustration with these revisions, including several key members of Congress, led by Senator Joe Manchin, who have announced that they will seek to overturn the Phase 2 Final Rule using the Congressional Review Act.

Provisions Directed Towards Promoting Efficiency and Streamlining

Page Limits and Timelines. The Final Rule makes many small and some larger changes to promote efficiency and streamline the NEPA process. The Final Rule incorporates the FRA’s page limits of 75 pages for environmental assessments (“EAs”), 150 pages for environmental impact statements (“EISs”), and 300 pages for EISs of “extraordinary complexity.” It includes the FRA’s time limits for completion of NEPA documents, requiring completion of EAs within one year and EISs within two years, although it allows for an agency to extend this deadline, in consultation with any project applicant, to the extent necessary to complete the document. To further promote efficiency, the Final Rule also requires agencies to set deadlines and schedules appropriate to specific actions or types of actions.

Categorical Exclusions. The Final Rule also makes substantial changes to its regulations governing CEs that should facilitate agencies’ adoption of CEs as a tool to streamline NEPA compliance in certain circumstances, as allowed under the FRA. It sets forth a process for agencies to adopt and utilize other agencies’ CEs, as allowed under the FRA without having to amend their regulations. The Final Rule clarifies that agencies can establish CEs individually as well as jointly with other agencies. And it allows agencies to establish CEs through land use plans, decision documents supported by a programmatic EIS or EA, or similar planning or programmatic decisions, without having to go through a separate rulemaking process. According to CEQ, by expanding the means by which agencies can establish CEs, these changes will, among other things, encourage agencies to undertake programmatic and planning reviews, as well as promote and speed the process for establishing CEs.

Programmatic Reviews and Tiering. The Final Rule includes various revisions to codify best practices for the use of programmatic NEPA reviews and tiering, which CEQ acknowledges “are important tools to facilitate more efficient environmental reviews and project approvals.”

Provisions that Could Increase NEPA Compliance Burdens

While the Phase 2 Final Rule emphasizes efficiency, it includes a range of regulatory changes that could have the opposite effect, creating additional burdens and potentially perpetuating opportunities for contentious litigation.

Climate Change, Environmental Justice, and Tribal Resources. Reflected in a wide range of revisions to the regulations, the Phase 2 Final Rule aims to further advance the Biden Administration’s policy focus on climate change, environmental justice, and Tribal resources. Among other provisions, the Final Rule explicitly requires agencies to analyze “disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns” and climate change-related effects, including quantification of greenhouse gas emissions where feasible, in their NEPA reviews. Agencies also must review these effects, as well as effects on Tribal rights and resources, in identifying the environmentally preferable alternative or alternatives. Similarly, the Final Rule defines “extraordinary circumstances”—which agencies must consider in determining whether to apply a CE—to include potential substantial disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns, potential substantial climate change effects, and potential substantial effects on historic or cultural properties. Moreover, agencies now “should, where relevant and appropriate, incorporate mitigation measures” to address effects “that disproportionately and adversely affect communities with environmental justice concerns.” And the Final Rule directs agencies, where appropriate, to use projections when evaluating climate change-related effects, including relying on models to project a range of possible future outcomes, provided that they disclose relevant assumptions or limitations. While these codifications are new—particularly the regulation directing agencies to consider mitigation for impacts to environmental justice communities—most agencies have been including some environmental justice and greenhouse gas emission impacts in their NEPA reviews based upon federal governmentwide and agency policy and court precedent.

Major Federal Actions. Implementing changes in the FRA and further responding to changes made in the 2020 rule, the Final Rule revises the definition of “major federal action”—the trigger for environmental review under NEPA. The FRA, in addition to specifying that a major federal action requires “substantial Federal control and responsibility,” established several exclusions including for certain types of projects receiving loans, loan guarantees, or other types of federal financial assistance. In an effort to address some of the uncertainty raised by these exclusions, the revised regulations provide that major federal actions generally include “[p]roviding more than a minimal amount of financial assistance, . . . where the agency has the authority to deny in whole or in part the assistance due to environmental effects, has authority to impose conditions on the receipt of the financial assistance to address environmental effects, or otherwise has sufficient control and responsibility over the subsequent use of the financial assistance” or effects of the funded activity.

Alternatives. The Phase 2 Final Rule clarifies that agencies are not required to consider “every conceivable alternative to a proposed action” but rather only “a reasonable range of alternatives that will foster informed decision making.” Additionally, the revised regulations provide that agencies have the discretion, but are not required, to include reasonable alternatives not within the lead agency’s jurisdiction. CEQ continues to anticipate that this will occur relatively infrequently and notes that such alternatives still must be technically and economically feasible and meet the proposed action’s purpose and need. The Final Rule also requires that environmental documents (and not just records of decision) identify one or more environmentally preferable alternatives, which could be the proposed action, the no action alternative, or a reasonable alternative.

Mitigation. Although NEPA has long been understood to be a procedural, rather than substantive, requirement, the Phase 2 Final Rule includes several provisions intended to encourage agencies to mitigate the impacts of proposed actions and to ensure that mitigation measures that agencies rely on in making their environmental determinations are actually carried out. When an agency incorporates and relies upon mitigation measures—whether in its analysis of reasonably foreseeable effects or in a mitigated finding of no significant impact—the revised regulations require the agency to explain the enforceable mitigation requirements or commitments to be undertaken and the authority to enforce them (for example, permit conditions, agreements, or other measures), and to prepare a monitoring and compliance plan.

Development of New Information. While agencies generally historically have not been required to develop data that was not readily available, CEQ “now considers it vital to the NEPA process for agencies to undertake studies and analyses” that provide information “essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives,” provided the overall costs are not unreasonable, and includes provisions to that effect in the Final Rule.

Exhaustion, Judicial Review, and Remedies. The Phase 2 Final Rule removes several changes included in the 2020 rule relating to exhaustion, judicial review, and remedies that were intended to reduce NEPA-related litigation and project delays.

The Phase 2 revisions take effect on July 1, 2024, and apply to any NEPA process that commences after that date, although the Final Rule states that agencies may apply them to ongoing activities and environmental documents that commence prior to that date. In addition to following the CEQ regulations, agencies also have adopted agency-specific NEPA implementing procedures. Agencies must revise these procedures to incorporate changes necessitated by the Phase 2 Final Rule by July 1, 2025.

© 2024 Van Ness Feldman LLP
For more news on Environmental Regulation Implementations, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.