Category: Environmental Law

Rise in VCM Business May Trigger CFTC Oversight on Sales of Carbon Offset Credits

Many major companies have announced a blueprint to minimize their carbon footprint. Some companies have gone so far as to proclaim that they will achieve “net zero” emissions in the near future. To accomplish their climate goals, many have turned to purchasing products called “carbon offset credits.”

Offset credits are defined as tradable “rights” or certificates linked to activities that lower the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. These offsets are purchased and sold on what is commonly referred to as “voluntary carbon markets” (VCMs), where owners of carbon-reducing projects can sell or trade their carbon offsets to emitters who wish to offset the negative effects of their emissions.[1] The VCMs, however, have been subject to criticism and concern due to lack of effective regulation to combat potential fraud. In response, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has announced its intent to increase enforcement resources and expertise to police the carbon markets.

How It Works

The owner of the carbon-reducing project applies to an independent (and largely unregulated) registry for carbon offsets. The registry then evaluates the project, often relying on complex information submitted by the project owner, to determine whether and how much atmospheric carbon the project will reduce. If the registry determines the project will reduce atmospheric carbon, it will issue a carbon offset credit to the project owner.

Typically, one offset credit represents one metric ton of carbon dioxide removed or kept out of the atmosphere. The price of offset credits will vary depending on different project types, different levels of benefits, and the markets in which they are traded. Once the registry issues the offset credit, the project owner can sell it to whomever it wants on a VCM. It is not uncommon for profit-seeking entities such as brokers or investors to purchase the offset credit and then sell it to the “end user,” which is the entity that wants to take credit for the carbon reduction. Once the “end user” purchases the offset credit, the credit is “retired” to ensure that it cannot be sold again.

Although voluntary carbon markets have been around for decades, they have taken off in recent years amid a deluge of corporate climate commitments. From 2018 to 2021, the VCM’s value grew from $300 million to $2 billion. Global management consultancy company McKinsey estimates that the value of VCMs may reach as high as $180 billion by 2030, while Research and Markets has projected a global value of $2.68 trillion by 2028.

Yet, the voluntary carbon market is fragmented and largely unregulated, suffers from varying accounting standards, and has been described as “the Wild West” for fraud. An investigation by The Guardian found that 90% of offsets issued by one of the largest registries for rainforest preservation projects were worthless because they did not represent legitimate carbon reductions. The voluntary carbon market is largely unregulated in the United States, and carbon offsets are almost exclusively issued by nongovernmental entities. Perhaps not surprisingly, regulators have started to look at the voluntary carbon markets more closely. In particular, the CFTC has shown an increasing interest in carbon in recent years.

Road Ahead

In September 2020, the CFTC’s Climate-Related Market Risk Subcommittee issued a report, “Managing Climate Risk in the U.S. Financial System,” that concluded climate change poses a major risk to the stability and integrity of the US economy and presented several dozen recommendations to mitigate climate risks. Less than a year later, CFTC Chairperson Rostin Behnam created the Climate Risk Unit to focus on the role of derivatives “in climate-related risk and transitioning to a low carbon economy.”

In June 2022, the CFTC held the first ever Voluntary Carbon Markets Convening to discuss issues related to a potential carbon offset market and to solicit input from industry participants in the CFTC’s potential role. After the Convening, the CFTC issued an RFI asking whether and how the CFTC should be involved in creating and regulating a voluntary carbon market. The responses to the RFI reflected that, while most industry participants agreed on the need for additional transparency and standardization in the voluntary carbon markets, they disagreed on the role the CFTC should play in such a market. A group of seven United States senators, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), argued that the CFTC should establish a robust regime governing the carbon market. Others argued that it is too soon for the CFTC to create rules and a registration mechanism, expressing concern that those actions might stifle industry innovation and progress.

At a keynote speech in January 2023, Chair Behnam stated that the CFTC “can play a role in voluntary [carbon] markets.” CFTC Commissioner Goldsmith Romero echoed the sentiment a month later in another speech and gave proposals for the CFTC to “promote resilience to climate risk.” Among those was a proposal that the “Commission should promote market integrity by increasing enforcement resources and expertise to combat greenwashing and other forms of fraud.”

The voluntary carbon market, Goldsmith Romero noted, “carr[ies] particular concerns of greenwashing, fraud, and manipulation” which “can lead to serious harm, distort market pricing, seriously damage a company’s reputation, and undermine the integrity of the markets.” This is particularly true with an esoteric commodity such as carbon offsets. For tangible commodities such as soybeans or oil, verifying delivery of the goods is relatively easy. But for carbon offsets, the offset purchaser often cannot verify that the promised greenhouse gas reduction is actually occurring; instead, the purchaser must rely on the promises made by the project owner or independent registry.

At present, the CFTC has limited enforcement jurisdiction over carbon offsets because only a limited number of carbon derivatives are traded on regulated futures markets. Carbon, as well as carbon and other environmental offsets or credits, are generally considered “commodities” as defined by § 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA). As a regulated commodity, transactions involving carbon credits or offsets are subject to the CFTC’s anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement jurisdiction.

As VCMs continue to grow, it is likely that offerings of carbon derivatives such as futures, options, and swaps will grow with them, which may provide the jurisdictional catalyst for the CFTC to get more involved. The CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of futures markets, including oversight of the listing of new contracts on futures exchanges. Currently, a limited number of carbon futures are available to trade, and most trade on already regulated exchanges such as the Global Emissions Offset (GEO) futures contracts traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). The price of CME’s GEO futures contract is based on CORSIA-eligible (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) offset credits issued through specific independent registries.

But given the varying standards and methodologies for these registries, combined with an increasing number of investigations that have found significant issues with offset credits, it is reasonable to expect that the CFTC may eventually seek to engage in more oversight of the registries to ensure that futures contracts are not being manipulated and the offset credits are actually delivering the carbon reductions promised. Given that offsets are widely traded as commodities, that demand for offset-based derivatives products is growing, and that fraud may be a widespread problem throughout the marketplace, it seems like a matter of when, not if, the CFTC begins to regulate VCMs more heavily.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Although often used interchangeably, voluntary carbon markets are different from compliance carbon markets. Compliance carbon markets are regulated markets set by “cap-and-trade” regulations at the state, national, or international governmental organizations. Governmental organizations set a cap on carbon emissions and then provide members with credits that act as a “permission slip” for a company to emit up to the cap. Voluntary carbon markets, on the other hand, involve trading of carbon credits between companies to reduce their own carbon footprint.

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

U.S. Department of Transportation Finalizes EV Charging Infrastructure Rules

Effective as of March 30, 2023, the Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) within the U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) announced the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements final rule  (the “Final Rule”) (23 CFR 680).  The Final Rule included several significant updates to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on June 9, 2022 which we summarized in our prior article. These updates function to establish a set of minimum standards and requirements for electric vehicle (“EV”) charging infrastructure projects funded with federal dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”), and with these updates in place, interested parties will have certainty with respect to NEVI-funded projects.1

The key updates included in the Final Rule are located in the following sections:

  1. Installation, operation, and maintenance by qualified technicians of EV infrastructure (§ 680.106)

  2. Interoperability of EV charging infrastructure (§ 680.108)

  3. Data requested related to a project funded under the NEVI Formula Program, including the format and schedule for the submission of such data (§ 680.112)

  4. Network connectivity of EV charging infrastructure (§ 680.114)

  5. Information on publicly available EV charging infrastructure locations, pricing, real-time availability, and accessibility though mapping applications. (§ 680.116)

Installation and Operation

The Final Rule contains modified language clarifying that any time charging stations are installed, there must be a minimum of four (4) ports, notwithstanding the type of port–including Direct Current Fast Charger (“DCFC”) and AC Level 2 chargers. Additionally, charging stations may also have non-proprietary connectors. This modification allows permanently attached non-proprietary connectors to be provided on each charging port so long as each DCFC charging ports have at least one permanently attached CCS type 1 connector and is capable of charging a CCS compliant vehicle.  These modifications will allow for increased accessibility to owners of all types of electric vehicles.

Concerned commenters expressed distain toward the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for lack of clarity on whether the Final Rule would apply to the NEVI formula program, Title 23, and publicly accessible EV chargers funded as a project on a federal aid highway. The FHWA responded in the Final Rule with modified language to confirm its applicability across these programs. To address concerns about opposition to the rule as applied to Title 23 projects, the language in the Final Rule was revised to provide increased flexibility in the use of funds to install different types of chargers, including for projects not located along Alternative Fuel Corridors and installing AC Level 2 charges and DCFCs at lower power levels. Additionally, AC Level 2 charger capability was modified to incorporate the ability to charge at 208-volt.

The Final Rule also reevaluated and modified charging capacity. Modifications require that each DCFW must simultaneously deliver up to 150 kW. Additionally, each AC level 2 port is required to have the capability of providing at least 6 kW, however, the customer has the option to accept a lower power level to allow power sharing or to participate in smart charge management programs. Smart charge management involves controlling charging power levels in response to external conditions and is typically applied in situations where EVs are connected to charges for long periods of time, such that prolonging charging for the benefit of the grid is not objectionable to charging customers. In contrast, power sharing involves dynamically curtailing power levels of charging ports based on the total power demand of all EVs concurrently charging at the same station. Power sharing is permissible above the minimum per-port requirements for DCFC and AC Level 2 chargers. Further, each DCFC port must support output voltage with a permitted range between 250 and 920 volts. This all allows for greater flexibility to manage the cost of the stations designed to meet current and future demand for increases in power, given the strong market trend towards EV charging power capacity above 150 kW for DCFC and above 6 kW for AC Level 2 charging.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking required charging stations to remain open for 24 hours, but commenters believed this requirement did not present a realistic standard nationwide. In the Final Rule, the language was amended to allow for less restrictive charging hours for charging stations located off designated AFCs and requires that the charging station must be available for use at least as frequently as the business operating hours of the site host, with discretion to the site host to allow longer access.

Payment and Price Transparency

Payment and Price Transparency received both modification and expansion under the Final Rule. State programs may allow for certain charging stations to be free, and as such, language in the Final Rule was modified to specify that payment mechanisms may be omitted from charging stations if charging is provided for free. Regarding acceptable payment methods, the Final Rule explicitly incorporated payment by mobile application in the “contactless payment methods” definition. Further, the Final Rule modified acceptable payment methods to include an automated toll-free calling or an SMS option as an additional payment method. While there is no guarantee that every individual will have access or the ability to speak on the phone or send a text, the FHWA sees this addition as a step in the right direction to help bridge the accessibility gap in access and payment for EV charging.

The Final Rule also altered price transparency to require that the dollar per kWh be transparently communicated prior to initiating a charge, and that other fees be clearly explained prior to payment.

Charging Station Information, Data Sharing, and Interoperability of EV Charging Infrastructure

The Final Rule also modified uptime requirements. The uptimes calculations were clarified by modifying the definition of when a charger is considered “up” and further modifying the equation to calculate uptime to the nearest minute to make the calculation more uniform across all charging station operators and network providers.

Open Charge Point Protocol (“OCPP”) and ISO 15118 are key components of interoperability. OCPP is an open source communication standard for EV charging stations and networks, and ISO 15118 is hardware that specifies the communication between EVs including Battery Electric Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. In the Final Rule, the FHWA discussed that OCPP version 2.01 has significant improvements over previous versions and contains compelling benefits to the EV charging ecosystem. As such, the Final Rule contains modifications regarding the charger-to-charger network requiring that charging networks conform to the newer OCPP version 2.01 by one year after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Additionally, FHWA requires charging station conformance to ISO 15118 and Plug and Charge capability by one year after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. Although many chargers on the market today are not yet using ISO 15118, the FHWA sees value in establishing a national standard for compliance. .

Annual data submittal, quarterly, and one time submittal requirements were modified to be completely streamlined and requiring any data made public to be aggregated and anonymized to protect confidential business information. The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation will establish and manage a national database and analytics platform that will streamline submission of data from States and their contractors along with providing ongoing technical assistance to States.

The Final Rule removed interoperability requirements and instead requires that chargers remain functional even if communication with the charging network is temporarily disrupted.

Community Engagement

For NEVI formula program projects, community engagement outcomes were modified in the Final Rule to require inclusion in the annual state EV infrastructure deployment plan rather than a separate report. This will allow for the type of information and data from the States to be most beneficial for informing and improving community engagement. Though we will have to wait until release of the annual Plan guidance to receive details regarding content expectations, commenters suggested several ways the report could be developed, including (i) conditioning funding for future years on meeting robust engagement requirements, including community engagement and equity and inclusion efforts by States (ii) describing how community engagement informed station and siting operations (iii) describing how workforce opportunities were integrated into community engagement efforts; and (iv) describing engagement with disabled community members.

The Future of EV Infrastructure

We will quickly see the significant effects the Final Rule will have on customers and manufacturers alike in enhancing EV charging capacity across the United States in this rapidly changing and ever-growing sector. As regulators, developers, and financiers of EV infrastructure evaluate the Final Rule, the Foley team is at the ready with significant experience, knowledge and expertise related to each element of this transformation, including issues related to the automotive, manufacturing, supply chain, regulatory, IP, private equity, tax equity, project finance, and public-private financing issues.

© 2023 Foley & Lardner LLP

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

FOOTNOTES

1 For a summary of the NEVI Formula Program, refer to our February 2022 article linked here.

European Commission Aims to Tackle Greenwashing in Latest Proposal

On March 22, the European Commission unveiled a proposal, the Green Claims Directive (Proposal), aimed at combating greenwashing and misleading environmental claims. By virtue of the Proposal, the EC is attempting to implement measures designed to provide “reliable, comparable and verifiable information” to consumers, with the overall high-level goal to create a level playing field in the EU, wherein companies that make a genuine effort to improve their environmental sustainability can be easily recognized and rewarded by consumers. The Proposal follows a 2020 sweep that found nearly half of environmental claims examined in the EU may be false or deceptive. Following the ordinary legislative procedure, the Proposal will now be subject to the approval of the European Parliament and the Council. There is no set date for entry into force at this time.

The Proposal complements a March 2022 proposal to amend the Consumer Rights Directive to provide consumers with information on products’ durability and repairability, as well as to amend the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive by, among other things, banning “generic, vague environmental claims” and “displaying a voluntary sustainability label which was not based on a third-party verification scheme or established by public authorities.” The Proposal builds on these measures to provide “more specific requirements on unregulated claims, be it for specific product groups, specific sectors or for specific environmental impacts or aspects.” It would require companies that make “green claims to respect minimum standards on how they substantiate and communicate those claims.” Businesses based outside the EU that make environmental claims directed at EU consumers will also have to respect the requirements set out in the Proposal. The criteria target explicit claims, such as “T-shirt made of recycled plastic bottles” and “packaging made of 30% recycled plastic.”

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Proposal, “environmental claims shall be based on an assessment that meets the selected minimum criteria to prevent claims from being misleading,” including, among other things, that the claim “relies on recognised scientific evidence and state of the art technical knowledge,” considers “all significant aspects and impacts to assess the performance,” demonstrates whether the claim is accurate for the whole product or only parts of it, provides information on whether the product performs better than “common practice,” identifies any negative impacts resulting from positive product achievements, and reports greenhouse gas offsets.

Article 4 of the Proposal outlines requirements for comparative claims related to environmental impacts, including disclosure of equivalent data for assessments, use of consistent assumptions for comparisons and use of data sourced in an equivalent manner. The level of substantiation needed will vary based on the type of claim, but all assessments should consider the product’s life-cycle to identify relevant impacts.

Pursuant to Article 10, all environmental claims and labels must be verified and certified by a third-party verifier before being used in commercial communications. An officially accredited body will carry out the verification process and issue a certificate of conformity, which will be recognized across the EU and shared among Member States via the Internal Market Information System. The verifier is required to be an officially accredited, independent body with the necessary expertise, equipment, and infrastructure to carry out the verifications and maintain professional secrecy.

The Proposal is part of a broader trend of governmental regulators, self-regulatory organizations, and standard setters across industries adopting a more formalized approach toward greenwashing. For example, as we recently reported, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) published rules on making carbon neutral and net-zero claims. Instances of enforcement actions over greenwashing allegations have also been on the rise. The Securities and Exchange Board of India recently launched a consultation paper seeking public comment on rules to prevent greenwashing by ESG investment funds, and the European Council and the European Parliament reached an agreement regarding European Green Bonds Standards aimed at, among other things, avoiding greenwashing.

Article By Sukhvir Basran and Rachel Rodman of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Click here to visit the National Law Review for more environmental law news.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

The EU’s New Green Claims Directive – It’s Not Easy Being Green

Highlights

  • On March 22, 2023, the European Commission proposed the Green Claims Directive, which is intended to make green claims reliable, comparable and verifiable across the EU and protect consumers from greenwashing
  • Adding to the momentum generated by other EU green initiatives, this directive could be the catalyst that also spurs the U.S. to approve stronger regulatory enforcement mechanisms to crackdown on greenwashing
  • This proposed directive overlaps the FTC’s request for comments on its Green Guides, including whether the agency should initiate a rulemaking to establish enforceable requirements related to unfair and deceptive environmental claims. The deadline for comments has been extended to April 24, 2023

The European Commission (EC) proposed the Green Claims Directive (GCD) on March 22, 2023, to crack down on greenwashing and prevent businesses from misleading customers about the environmental characteristics of their products and services. This action was in response, at least in part, to a 2020 commission study that found more than 50 percent of green labels made environmental claims that were “vague, misleading or unfounded,” and 40 percent of these claims were “unsubstantiated.”

 

This definitive action by the European Union (EU) comes at a time when the U.S. is also considering options to curb greenwashing and could inspire the U.S. to implement stronger regulatory enforcement mechanisms, including promulgation of new enforceable rules by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defining and prohibiting unfair and deceptive environmental claims.

According to the EC, under this proposal, consumers “will have more clarity, stronger reassurance that when something is sold as green, it actually is green, and better quality information to choose environment-friendly products and services.”

Scope of the Green Claims Directive

The EC’s objectives in the proposed GCD are to:

  • Make green claims reliable, comparable and verifiable across the EU
  • Protect consumers from greenwashing
  • Contribute to creating a circular and green EU economy by enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions
  • Help establish a level playing field when it comes to environmental performance of products

The related proposal for a directive on empowering consumers for the green transition and annex, referenced in the proposed GCD, defines the green claims to be regulated as follows:

“any message or representation, which is not mandatory under Union law or national law, including text, pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, in any form, including labels, brand names, company names or product names, in the context of a commercial communication, which states or implies that a product or trader has a positive or no impact on the environment or is less damaging to the environment than other products or traders, respectively, or has improved their impact over time.”

The GCD provides minimum requirements for valid, comparable and verifiable information about the environmental impacts of products that make green claims. The proposal sets clear criteria for companies to prove their environmental claims: “As part of the scientific analysis, companies will identify the environmental impacts that are actually relevant to their product, as well as identifying any possible trade-offs to give a full and accurate picture.” Businesses will be required to provide consumers information on the green claim, either with the product or online. The new rule will require verification by independent auditors before claims can be made and put on the market.

The GCD will also regulate environmental labels. The GCD is proposing to establish standard criteria for the more than 230 voluntary sustainability labels used across the EU, which are currently “subject to different levels of robustness, supervision and transparency.” The GCD will require environmental labels to be reliable, transparent, independently verified and regularly reviewed. Under the new proposal, adding an environmental label on products is still voluntary. The EU’s official EU Ecolabel is exempt from the new rules since it already adheres to a third-party verification standard.

Companies based outside the EU that make green claims or utilize environmental labels that target the consumers of the 27 member states also would be required to comply with the GCD. It will be up to member states to set up the substantiation process for products and labels’ green claims using independent and accredited auditors. The GCD has established the following process criteria:

  • Claims must be substantiated with scientific evidence that is widely recognised, identifying the relevant environmental impacts and any trade-offs between them
  • If products or organisations are compared with other products and organisations, these comparisons must be fair and based on equivalent information and data
  • Claims or labels that use aggregate scoring of the product’s overall environmental impact on, for example, biodiversity, climate, water consumption, soil, etc., shall not be permitted, unless set in EU rules
  • Environmental labelling schemes should be solid and reliable, and their proliferation must be controlled. EU level schemes should be encouraged, new public schemes, unless developed at EU level, will not be allowed, and new private schemes are only allowed if they can show higher environmental ambition than existing ones and get a pre-approval
  • Environmental labels must be transparent, verified by a third party, and regularly reviewed

Enforcement of the GCD will take place at the member state level, subject to the proviso in the GCD that “penalties must be ‘effective, proportionate and dissuasive.’” Penalties for violation range from fines to confiscation of revenues and temporary exclusion from public procurement processes and public funding. The directive requires that consumers should be able to bring an action as well.

The EC’s intent is for the GCD to work with the Directive on Empowering the Consumers for the Green Transition, which encourages sustainable consumption by providing understandable information about the environmental impact of products, and identifying the types of claims that are deemed unfair commercial practices. Together these new rules are intended to provide a clear regime for environmental claims and labels. According to the EC, the adoption of this proposed legislation will not only protect consumers and the environment but also give a competitive edge to companies committed to increasing their environmental sustainability.

Initial Public Reaction to the GCD and Next Steps

While some organizations, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, offered support, several interest groups quickly issued public critiques of the proposed GCD. The Sustainable Apparel Coalition asserted that: “The Directive does not mandate a standardized and clearly defined framework based on scientific foundations and fails to provide the legal certainty for companies and clarity to consumers.”

ECOS lamented that “After months of intense lobbying, what could have been legislation contributing to providing reliable environmental information to consumers was substantially watered down,” and added that “In order for claims to be robust and comparable, harmonised methodologies at the EU level will be crucial.” Carbon Market Watch was disappointed that “The draft directive fails to outlaw vague and disingenuous terms like ‘carbon neutrality’, which are a favoured marketing strategy for companies seeking to give their image a green makeover while continuing to pollute with impunity.”

The EC’s proposal will now go to the European Parliament and Council for consideration. This process usually takes about 18 months, during which there will be a public consultation process that will solicit comments, and amendments may be introduced. If the GCD is approved, each of the 27 member states will have 18 months after entry of the GCD to adopt national laws, and those laws will become effective six months after that. As a result, there is a reasonably good prospect that there will be variants in the final laws enacted.

Will the GCD Influence the U.S.’s Approach to Regulation of Greenwashing?

The timing and scope of the GCD is of no small interest in the U.S., where regulation of greenwashing has been ramping up as well. In May 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued the proposed Names Rule and ESG Disclosure Rule targeting greenwashing in the naming and purpose of claimed ESG funds. The SEC is expected to take final action on the Names Rule in April 2023.

Additionally, as part of a review process that occurs every 10 years, the FTC is receiving comments on its Green Guides for the Use of Environmental Claims, which also target greenwashing. However, the Green Guides are just that – guides that do not currently have the force of law that are used to help interpret what is “unfair and deceptive.”

It is particularly noteworthy that the FTC has asked the public to comment, for the first time, on whether the agency should initiate a rulemaking under the FTC Act to establish independently enforceable requirements related to unfair and deceptive environmental claims. If the FTC promulgates such a rule, it will have new enforcement authority to impose substantial penalties.

The deadline for comments on the Green Guides was recently extended to April 24, 2023. It is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of comments and it will take some time for the FTC to digest them. It will be interesting to watch the process unfold as the GCD moves toward finalization and the FTC decides whether to commence rulemaking in connection with its Green Guide updates. Once again there is a reasonable prospect that the European initiatives and momentum on green matters, including the GCD, could be a catalyst for the US to step up as well – in this case to implement stronger regulatory enforcement mechanisms to crackdown on greenwashing.

Article By Bruce White of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

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

© 2023 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Consumer Fraud PFAS Lawsuits Update: Two Cases Dismissed

On several instances, we have written regarding consumer fraud PFAS class action lawsuits filed in several states. The number of product types targeted for these lawsuits are growing and diverse in terms of the industries targeted. While there has been at least one significant settlement in these lawsuits to date, recently two of the lawsuits that we previously reported on related to PFAS consumer fraud allegations were dismissed by separate courts.

While it is too early to say that these dismissals are a preview of a coming trend in the litigation, the rulings at least provide companies with assurance that there are defenses available in these cases. Nevertheless, with the number of consumer fraud lawsuits likely to continue increasing for the time being, consumer goods industries, insurers, and investment companies interested in the consumer goods vertical must pay careful attention to these lawsuits.

Consumer Fraud PFAS Lawsuits – Overview

The consumer fraud PFAS lawsuits filed to date follow a very similar pattern: various plaintiffs bringing suit on behalf of a proposed class allege that companies market consumer goods as safe, healthy, environmentally friendly, etc., or that the companies themselves market their corporate practices as such, yet it is allegedly discovered that certain products marketed with these buzzwords contain PFAS. The lawsuits allege that since certain PFAS may be harmful to human health and PFAS are biopersistent (and therefore environmentally unfriendly), the companies making the good engaged in fraud against consumers to entice them to purchase the products in question.

In the Complaints, plaintiffs typically allege the following counts:

  • Violation of state consumer protection laws and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
  • Violations of various state consumer protection laws
  • Breach of warranty
  • Fraud
  • Constructive fraud
  • Unjust enrichment

The plaintiffs seek certification of nationwide class action lawsuits, with a subclass defined as consumers in the state in which the lawsuits are filed. In addition, the lawsuits seeks damages, fees, costs, and a jury trial. Representative industries and cases that have recently been filed include:

  • Cosmetics industry:
    • Brown v. Cover Girl, New York (April 1, 2022)
    • Anderson v. Almay, New York (April 1, 2022)
    • Rebecca Vega v. L’Oreal, New Jersey (April 8, 2022)
    • Spindel v. Burt’s Bees, California (March 25, 2022)
    • Hicks and Vargas v. L’Oreal, New York (March 9, 2022)
    • Davenport v. L’Oreal, California (February 22, 2022)
  • Food packaging industry:
    • Richburg v. Conagra Brands, Illinois (May 6, 2022)
    • Ruiz v. Conagra Brands, Illinois (May 6, 2022)
    • Hamman v. Cava Group, California (April 27, 2022)
    • Azman Hussain v. Burger King, California (April 11, 2022)
    • Little v. NatureStar, California (April 8, 2022)
    • Larry Clark v. McDonald’s, Illinois (March 28, 2022)
  • Food and drink products:
    • Bedson v. Biosteel, New York (January 27, 2023)
    • Lorenz v. Coca-Cola, New York (December 28, 2022)
    • Toribio v. Kraft Heinz, Illinois (November 29, 2022)
  • Apparel products:
    • Krakauer v. REI, Washington (October 28, 2022)
  • Hygiene products:
    • Esquibel v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., New York (January 27, 2023)
    • Dalewitz v. Proctor & Gamble, New York (August 26, 2022)
  • Feminine hygiene products:
    • Gemma Rivera v. Knix Wear Inc., California (April 4, 2022)
    • Blenis v. Thinx, Inc., Massachusetts (June 18, 2021)
    • Destini Canan v. Thinx Inc., California (November 12, 2020)

Recent Rulings In Consumer Fraud PFAS Cases

In California, the Yeraldinne Solis v. CoverGirl Cosmetics et al. case made allegations that cosmetics were marketed as safe and sustainable, yet were found to contain PFAS. The defendants in the lawsuit filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing in relevant part that the plaintiff had no standing to file the lawsuit because she did not sufficiently allege that she suffered any economic harm from purchasing the product. The plaintiff put forth two theories to counter this argument: (1) the “benefit of the bargain” theory, under which the plaintiff alleged that she bargained for a product that was “safe”, but received the opposite. The court dismissed this argument because the product packaging did not market the product as safe, and the ingredient list explicitly named the type of PFAS found in testing; and (2) an overpayment theory, under which plaintiff alleged that if she knew the product contained PFAS, she would not have paid as much for it as she did. The Court dismissed this argument because the product packaging specifically listed the type of PFAS at issue in the case.

In Illinois, the Richburg v. Conagra Brands, Inc. alleged that popcorn packaging was marketed as containing “only real ingredients” and ingredients from “natural sources”, yet the popcorn contained PFAS (likely from the packaging itself), which was allegedly false and misleading to consumers. The defendant moved to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds and the Court found in defendant’s favor on one important ground. The Court held that the statements on the popcorn packaging would not mislead an ordinary and reasonable consumer because a consumer would understand “ingredients” to mean those items that are required to be disclosed by the FDA and not materials that may have migrated to the food from the product packaging. In fact, the Court ruled that the FDA “exempts substances migrating to food from equipment or packaging;” and those “do not need to be included in the ingredients list.”  The defendant argued that reasonable consumers would not consider PFAS to be an “ingredient” under this regime.  In other words, whether or not PFAS migrated into the popcorn, the representations that the popcorn contained “only real ingredients” and “100% ingredients from natural sources” were “correct as a matter of law.” The court dismissed plaintiffs claims on this basis.

Conclusion

Several major companies now find themselves embroiled in litigation focused on PFAS false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and ESG reports. The lawsuits may well serve as test cases for plaintiffs’ bar to determine whether similar lawsuits will be successful in any (or all) of the fifty states in this country. Companies must consider the possibility of needing to defend lawsuits involving plaintiffs in all fifty states for products that contain PFAS. It should be noted that these lawsuits would only touch on the marketing, advertising, ESG reporting, and consumer protection type of issues. Separate products lawsuits could follow that take direct aim at obtaining damages for personal injury for plaintiffs from consumer products. In addition, environmental pollution lawsuits could seek damage for diminution of property value, cleanup costs, and PFAS filtration systems if drinking water cleanup is required.

While the above rulings are encouraging for companies facing consumer fraud PFAS lawsuits, it is far too early to tell if the trend will continue nationally.  Different courts apply legal standards differently and these cases are very fact specific, which could lead to differing results.

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

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

How to Succeed in Environmental Marketing Claims

Environmental marketing claims often present something of a Catch-22—companies that are doing actual good for the environment deserve to reap the benefits of their efforts, and consumers deserve to know, while at the same time, heightened scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the National Advertising Division (NAD), state regulators and the plaintiffs’ bar have made such claims increasingly risky.

In 2012, the FTC issued the Green Guides for the use of environmental marketing claims to protect consumers and to help advertisers avoid deceptive environmental marketing. Compliance with the Green Guides may provide a safe harbor from FTC enforcement, and from liability under state laws, such as California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, that incorporate the Green Guides. The FTC has started a process to revise the Green Guides, including a request for comments about the meaning of “sustainable.” In the meantime, any business considering touting the environmental attributes of its products should consider the following essential takeaways from the Green Guides in their current form:

    • Substantiation: Substantiation is key! Advertisers should have a reasonable basis for their environmental claims. Substantiation is the support for a claim, which helps ensure that the claim is truthful and not misleading or deceptive. Among other things, substantiation requires documentation sufficient to verify environmental claims.
    • General benefit claims: Advertisers should avoid making unqualified claims of general benefit because substantiation is required for each reasonable interpretation of the claim. The more narrowly tailored the claim, the easier it is to substantiate.
    • Comparative claims: Advertisers should be careful and specific when making comparative claims. For example, a claim that states “20% more recycled content” begs the question: “compared to what?” A prior version of the same product? A competing product? Without further detail, the advertiser would be responsible for the reasonable interpretation that the product has 20% more recycled content than other brands, as well as the interpretation that the product has 20% more recycled content than the advertiser’s older products.
    • General greenwashing terms: Advertisers should be very cautious when using general environmental benefit terms such as “eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” “green,” and “planet-friendly.” Those kinds of claims feature prominently in many complaints alleging greenwashing, and they should only be used where the advertiser knows and explains what the term means, and can substantiate every reasonable interpretation of the claim.

Putting it into Practice: Given the scrutiny that environmental claims tend to attract, advertisers should exercise care when making environmental benefit claims about their products and services. They should narrowly tailor their claims to the specific environmental attributes they want to promote, and perhaps most important, they should ensure they have adequate backup to substantiate their claims. While the FTC Green Guides are due for a refresh (which we will surely report on), for the time being, they will continue to serve as important guidance for advertisers seeking to inform consumers without exposing their business to FTC scrutiny or class action litigation.

H2 Production: A Shift Towards Electrolysis

Hydrogen production technology, according to the joint EPO-IEA report summarizing patent trends in the hydrogen economy (summarized here), accounts for the largest percentage of patenting activity since 2011 among the three primary stages of the hydrogen value chain (i.e., (i) production, (ii) storage, distribution, and transformation, and (iii) end-use industrial applications). Trends show a shift in hydrogen production from carbon-intensive methods to technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The bulk of recent increased patent activity is directed to electrolysis development, while patent activity related to production from biomass and waste has decreased.

Electrolysis

Electrolysis is attractive because it’s a low-emission source, meaning that hydrogen produced through electrolysis creates little to no greenhouse gas emissions. It is possible that water electrolyzers are powered by electricity derived from natural gas or fossil fuels, but unlike most other hydrogen production technology, electrolyzers do not produce greenhouse gas emissions and thereby offer the ability to produce hydrogen with net zero carbon emissions.

In this article, we will first briefly explain electrolysis and conventional concepts using electrolysis. Then, we will give an example of a technology that recently emerged from conventional electrolysis-based solutions. We will close with a brief description of alternative technologies for hydrogen production.

State of the Art

Electrolyzers use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Specifically, an electrolyzer cell includes an anode and a cathode separated by a polymer electrolyte membrane. Water reacts at the anode to form oxygen and positively charged hydrogen ions. The hydrogen ions selectively move across the membrane to the cathode, where they combine with electrons from an external circuit to form hydrogen gas. A number of cells are assembled into a cell stack that efficiently produces hydrogen and oxygen. A standard electrolyzer stack includes membrane electrode assemblies, current collectors, and separator or bipolar plates.

Electrolyzers also range in size and type. Electrolyzer sizes range from small, appliance-size units to large-scale, central production facilities. Electrolyzer types include polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyzers, alkaline electrolyzers, and solid oxide electrolyzers. Conventional electrolyzer stacks have capacities of 5 MW to 100 MW per stack, depending primarily on the membrane technology.

Emerging Technologies

EvolOh is a California-based startup planning to build the world’s largest hydrogen manufacturing plant in Massachusetts this year to manufacture its anion-exchange membrane (AEM) electrolyzers. The plant will be used for fabrication and assembly of the AEM electrolyzer stacks for producing green hydrogen1. These compact and high-power density electrolyzer stacks should allow for high-speed manufacturing using low-cost materials based on domestic supply chain and no precious metals. With anticipated power ratings of up to 5 MW for a single stack and 50 MW for a single module, EvolOH’s stacks are intended to be designed for large-scale facilities.

As disclosed in EvolOH’s IP, its electrolyzer stack features a bipolar plate assembly including a bipolar plate, a hydrogen seal, a water seal, and a fluid distribution frame. The fluid distribution frame serves multiple purposes within the electrolyzer stack, including containing a cathode flow field, distributing water flow from one water delivery window to a leading edge of the anode flow field, collecting water and oxygen flow from the anode flow field and distributing the flows to oxygen collection windows, and engaging and curing hydrogen seal between the frame and a bipolar plate adjacent to the cathode flow field and a water seal between the frame and a bipolar plate adjacent to the anode flow field.2 In contrast to conventional bipolar plates that include simple flow distribution channels, the bipolar plate assembly of the EvolOH electrolyzer stack is intended to provide for a scalable electrolysis cell that can be utilized in a variety of electrolyzer types.

Also as described in EvolOH’s IP, its electrolyzer stack includes a compression system having a lower wrap and an upper wrap connected at a joint to form a continuous vertical tension boundary around the cell stack and its end units while providing access to opposite lateral ends of the stack.3 Conventional electrolyzer stacks may apply a compressive load on the cell stack using end structural plates drawn together by tie rods and adjustable elements such as screws, nuts, and springs. Unlike the conventional tie rod compression, the compressive system of EvolOH’s electrolyzer stack is intended to maintain adequate compression on the stack over a range of temperatures taking into account thermal expansion and compression.

EvolOH is among many companies focused on the development of electrolyzer technology to scale-up hydrogen to reach a broader market. For example, Air Liquide and Siemens Energy recently teamed up to form a joint venture last year to produce large-scale hydrogen electrolyzers in Europe. Set to open in 2023, they intend to produce a large-scale electrolyzer with an intended capacity of 100 MW that may reduce costs per kW by 33% by 2030. The EPO-IEA study finds that Siemens is one of the leading applicants in electrolyzer patent families since 2011 and that Air Liquide is a top applicant in patent families directed to established hydrogen production technologies as well as hydrogen storage and distribution technologies.

Alternative Hydrogen Production Options

In addition to electrolysis, hydrogen can be produced from other methods such as biomass or waste via gasification or pyrolysis, recovery of by-product hydrogen from chlor-alkali electrolysis, and methane pyrolysis. Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas through methods such as steam reforming, which emits carbon dioxide in the process. Widespread natural gas infrastructure makes hydrogen production from natural gas appealing, and developments in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology may make this option even more appealing.

In our next post on the EPO-IEA’s report, “Hydrogen Patents for a Clean Energy Future: A Global Trend Analysis of Innovation Along Hydrogen Value Chains,” we will dive into the second technology segment of the hydrogen value chain—hydrogen storage, distribution, and transformation.

Article By Jason A. Engel, Dr. Benjamin Fechner, and Clare Frederick of K&L Gates

For more energy and environment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2023 K & L Gates

President Biden’s FY 2024 Budget Includes Additional Funding for TSCA and Funding to Address PFAS Pollution

On March 9, 2023, President Biden released his fiscal year (FY) 2024 budget. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) March 9, 2023, press release, the budget requests over $12 billion in discretionary budget authority for EPA in FY 2024, a $1.9 billion or 19 percent increase from the FY 2023 enacted level. Highlights of the FY 2024 budget include:

  • Ensuring Safety of Chemicals for People and the Environment: The budget provides an investment of $130 million, $49 million more than the 2023 enacted level, to build core capacity to implement the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Under TSCA, EPA has a responsibility to ensure the safety of chemicals in or entering commerce. According to EPA, in FY 2024, it “will focus on evaluating, assessing, and managing risks from exposure to new and existing industrial chemicals to advance human health protection in our communities.” EPA states that “[a]nother priority is to implement [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)] to ensure pesticides pose no unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.”
  • Tackling Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Pollution: The budget provides approximately $170 million to combat PFAS pollution. This request allows EPA to continue working toward commitments made under EPA’s 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap, including: increasing its knowledge of PFAS impacts on human health and ecological effects; restricting use to prevent PFAS from entering the air, land, and water; and remediating PFAS that have been released into the environment.

EPA states that it will release the full Congressional Justification and Budget in Brief materials “soon.”

Article By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Click here for more environmental legal news from the National Law Review.

©2023 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

The EPA and Army Corps’ “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) Rule to Become Effective on March 20

In January of 2023, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published in the Federal Register (see Federal Register/Vol. 88, No. 11, January 18, 2023) new rules that define which water bodies are classified under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as “waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS). While this may not appear to be significant, the adoption of these rules will have major implications for how federal agencies will identify the types of water bodies that are subject to jurisdiction under the CWA. The January 18th Federal Register publication provides that these new rules will become effective on March 20, 2023.

The CWA is the law that provides federal agencies the authority to prohibit or limit various activities that can impact WOTUS, such as the regulation of industrial and municipal wastewater discharges to navigable waters, the dredging or filling of wetlands, and the requirement to prepare “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans” (SWPPP) for industrial facilities. It also is the basis for much State law water regulation.

Applicability of the CWA

To be classified as a WOTUS, a water body must be considered to be “navigable,” but this term is more arcane than it might at first appear. Navigable waters as defined by the CWA includes, “waters of the United States,” and has been further defined by regulation to include those waters that “are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.” This approach to navigability has led some states to adopt a “saw log test” as to whether the body of water could float a saw log for commercial purposes. In other states, such as Wisconsin, the test for navigability is whether the body of water can on a recurring basis – even if intermittent – support navigation by the smallest recreational craft, such as a canoe or kayak. Therefore, navigable waters not only can include larger lakes, rivers and streams, but can also include less obvious smaller water types such as wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, and even in some instances, ditches that hold water. While the CWA provides federal jurisdiction over WOTUS, the CWA does not actually define the term WOTUS; rather, it provides authority for EPA and the USACE to define WOTUS in regulations, which since the 1970s, the agencies at various times have done.

The Rapanos Decision and Competing Rationales

Further, the definition of what constitutes WOTUS has been reviewed in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, but the most significant case on this subject is the 2006 case of Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), in which the Supreme Court interpreted the definition of WOTUS using two separate tests. In a four-justice plurality opinion written by Justice Scalia, WOTUS was defined as “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographic features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams[,] … oceans, rivers, [and] lakes,” and “wetlands with a continuous surface connection” to a “relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.” However, Justice Kennedy applied a different approach in a concurring opinion and stated that WOTUS must possess a “significant nexus” to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” He added that adjacent wetlands could possess a significant nexus if the wetlands “either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.'”

Regulatory Attempts to Define WOTUS Following Rapanos

Following Rapanos, the agencies have at various times developed guidance for implementing the WOTUS definition. For example, in 2015, under the Obama administration, the agencies amended their regulations defining WOTUS as part of the “Clean Water Rule, which expanded the definition of which water bodies were defined as WOTUS, and included the use of the “significant nexus” test. Again, in 2020, under the Trump administration, another rule was adopted, known as the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” (NWPR), which limited the types of water bodies that were considered WOTUS under the previous 2015 Clean Water Rule. However, in 2021, in Pasqua Yaqui Tribe v. EPA, (Case No. 4:20-cv-00266), the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona vacated implementation of the NWPR nationwide. The new rules published in the January 2023 Federal Register represents the Biden administration’s effort to rewrite the WOTUS rules following the vacation of the NWPR, allowing the agencies the ability to use both Justice Scalia’s “relatively permanent” test or Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test in determining whether they have jurisdiction over water bodies.

WOTUS under the New Rule

Use of the “relatively permanent” test or the “significant nexus” test is apparent in the new rule’s definition of WOTUS. The 2023 rules identify the following waters as WOTUS:

  • Traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, and interstate waters;
  • Impoundments of waters otherwise identified as WOTUS;
  • Tributaries of navigable waters, territorial seas, interstate waters, or impoundments if the tributaries meet the relatively permanent test or the significant nexus test;
  • “Adjacent wetlands,” which includes wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, wetlands adjacent to and with a continuous surface connection to relatively permanent impoundments, wetlands adjacent to tributaries that are relatively permanent, and wetlands adjacent to impoundments or tributaries which meet the significant nexus test; and
  • Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not listed above which meet the relatively permanent test or the significant nexus test.

The 2023 rules specifically exclude the following from the WOTUS definition, though some activities may still be subject to Wisconsin rules:

  • Prior converted cropland;
  • Waste treatment systems;
  • Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land, and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
  • Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased.
  • Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land, that are used exclusively for stock watering, irrigation, settling basins or rice growing;
  • Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools, and other small ornamental water bodies created by excavating or diking;
  • Waterfilled depressions in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for obtaining fill, sand or gravel unless the construction is abandoned and the water body meets the definition of WOTUS; and
  • Swales and erosional features that are characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

Where is this Going?

While these new WOTUS rules become effective on March 20, 2023, the future of these new rules is in question as the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a case (Sackett v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 896 (2022)) in which the legal sufficiency of the “significant nexus” test, in the context of wetland permitting, is under review. The Court’s opinion is expected to be issued after the 2023 rules becomes effective. Therefore, depending on the Court’s opinion related to the “significant nexus” test, it is possible that the 2023 rules may need to be revised. Further, in early March, a federal Congressional Committee (the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) approved a joint resolution to overturn the 2023 rules. In addition, several industry groups have filed suits to overturn the 2023 rules. These definitions have always been politically and scientifically contentious and we expect that to continue.

Due to the potential flux in which this new rule may ultimately be applied and considered, it will be increasingly important for the regulated public to keep abreast of which water bodies are ultimately determined to be classified as WOTUS, either by the agencies through regulation or guidance, by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett, and/or other legal or Congressional challenges. We will be tracking the implementation of this new rule by the agencies and related caselaw developments and Congressional challenges and will provide timely future Legal Updates. In the meantime, the extent of regulations of WOTUS – particularly wetlands – will continue to be very challenging.

Article By David P. Ruetz of von Briesen & Roper, s.c.

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

©2023 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

Administration’s WOTUS Rule Muddies Jurisdictional Waters

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have issued a new definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which becomes effective on March 20. The regulated community is watching this new definition of WOTUS because it will determine federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

For example, projects involving oil or natural gas development or pipeline construction require federal permitting for impacts from crossing, or otherwise disturbing, WOTUS. Generally speaking, the more impacts to such federally regulated streams and wetlands, the more complicated, expensive and lengthy the Corps Section 404 permitting.

In addition to determining the scope of federal permitting for the dredging/filling of streams and wetlands, the WOTUS definition also determines the scope of several other federal regulations, including regulations associated with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting, Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans and federal spill reporting. Although WOTUS is not defined in the CWA, the WOTUS definition appears in 11 different federal regulations.

Overview And Background

The agencies have promoted this final rule as establishing a “durable definition” that will “reduce uncertainty” in identifying WOTUS. However, this definition does not appear to provide much-needed clarity. Rather, generally speaking, the new definition codifies the approach that the agencies already have been informally utilizing to determine WOTUS, for example, relying on the definition of WOTUS from the late 1980s, as interpreted by subsequent U. S. Supreme Court decisions (such as the 2006 case, Rapanos v. United States). Challenges to the new definition are already underway.

The definition of WOTUS has been debated for nearly two decades, starting with several U. S. Supreme Court cases, which addressed the meaning of the 1980s WOTUS definition. This 1980s definition is very brief and is open to much interpretation because it does not include any defined terms. As discussed further below, rather than providing clarity, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions introduced additional uncertainty by offering more than one test for determining WOTUS.

Subsequently, Presidents Obama and Trump each introduced their own WOTUS definitions. President Barack Obama introduced the Clean Water Rule (CWR) in 2015, and President Donald Trump introduced the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR) in 2020.

Not surprisingly, the CWR entailed a broader interpretation of WOTUS, based heavily of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s significant nexus test in Rapanos, while the NWPR was based heavily on Justice Antonin Scalia’s “relatively permanent waters” test in Rapanos. Both the CWR and the NWPR were immediately and significantly challenged. Neither rule remains in effect.

Current Status

The Biden administration published its draft definition of WOTUS on Dec. 7. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on Jan. 18. The agencies’ approach to interpreting WOTUS relies heavily on both of the frequently discussed tests identified in the Rapanos decision. In Rapanos, Justice Scalia issued the plurality opinion, which held that WOTUS would include only “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” connected to traditional navigable waters, and to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to such relatively permanent waters” (such as adjacent wetlands).

Justice Kennedy, however, advanced a broader WOTUS interpretation in his concurring opinion, which was based on the concept of a “significant nexus” (for instance, wetlands should be considered as WOTUS “if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of other covered water”). President Biden’s new definition directly quotes and codifies these tests as regulations that may be relied upon to support a WOTUS determination.

While this new WOTUS definition may not be, conceptually, a significant change to how the agencies regulate streams and wetlands, the new definition may expand the agencies’ interpretation of a wetland that is “adjacent” to a WOTUS, through its lengthy discussion of adjacent wetlands in the final rule’s preamble.

The new definition also may expand how the agencies determine whether a water body will “significantly affect” a WOTUS, by providing a definition of “significantly affect,” which enumerates five factors to assess and five functions to consider in evaluating whether a potentially unregulated water will have a “material influence” on a traditionally navigable water.

Factors include distance from the traditionally navigable water, hydrologic factors and climatological variables. Functions include contribution of flow and retention and attenuation of runoff. Both the factors and the functions are broad and open to interpretation, which may lead to the agencies asserting jurisdiction over more water bodies. The new definition also codifies that the effect of the potentially regulated water must be evaluated alone “or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region,” which likely will broaden how the agencies evaluate the potential regulation of ephemeral and isolated water bodies.

Supreme Court And Congress

Publication of this definition, at this time, is likely a preemptive move by the agencies in advance of the Supreme Court’s impending decision in Sackett v. EPA, a case in which the court will, again, weigh in on the definition of WOTUS.

In Sackett, landowners in Idaho have had a long-standing challenge to an administrative order issued against them for allegedly filling wetlands without a permit. The Sacketts assert that Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test in Rapanos is not the appropriate test to delineate wetlands as WOTUS, and that, under the test identified by Justice Scalia, the wetlands on their property are not WOTUS.

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Sacketts’ position and held that the “significant nexus” test in the Kennedy concurrence was the controlling opinion from Rapanos. The Sacketts petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether Rapanos should be revisited to adopt the plurality’s test for wetland jurisdiction under the CWA. However, the Supreme Court instead will consider the narrow issue of whether the Ninth Circuit “set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are WOTUS.”

Some have speculated that the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion may support a narrower interpretation of WOTUS than the agencies have been implementing. For example, if the court narrows or eliminates the “significant nexus” test, the decision will create even more uncertainty in identifying WOTUS and may invalidate the Biden administration’s definition. The Sackett opinion is expected by this summer.

In a letter dated Jan. 30, 25 Republican governors asked President Biden to delay implementation of the new WOTUS definition until the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Sackett decision. The governors oppose the new definition and claim that it is, among other things, ill-timed, burdensome and overbroad. The governors assert that delaying implementation of the new definition until after the issuance of the Sackett decision will minimize the number of changes to the definition in a short time. The governors stated that multiple revisions would “impose an unnecessary strain on farmers, builders and every other impacted sector of the American economy.”

Consistent with the sentiments of the Republican governors, in early February, Republican members of Congress, led by Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V., and representatives Sam Graves, R-Mo., and David Rouzer, R-N.C., announced that they intended to use the Congressional Review Act to formally challenge the new WOTUS definition through a joint resolution of disapproval. The hearing was held on Feb 8.

The CRA provides Congress a mechanism to vote to disapprove agency rules that go beyond the authority Congress granted to federal agencies and to send the resolution to the president, who can approve or veto the resolution. If passed, the joint resolution of disapproval could invalidate the rule and prohibit an agency from issuing a rule that is in substantially the same form without further congressional authorization. President Biden is expected to veto any such joint resolution of disapproval.

Consistent with Obama’s CWR and Trump’s NWPR, the new WOTUS definition already has been challenged in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas by Texas and 18 industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, claiming that the new definition is “unworkable” and in conflict with the CWA (see accompanying story, page 30). These challenges may result in the stay or vacatur of the new definition. If this occurs, the agencies may, again, revert back to the current WOTUS definition.

Article By Lisa M. Bruderly of Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, P.C.

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

© Copyright Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.