Tag: environment

Biden Administration Sets New Course on ESG Investing in Retirement Plans

In late 2022, the Department of Labor finalized a new rule titled “Prudence in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights,” largely reversing Trump-era guidance that had strictly limited the ability of plan fiduciaries to consider “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) factors in selecting retirement plan investments and generally discouraged the exercise of proxy voting. In short, the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options, provided that the selection serves the financial interests of the plan and its participants over an appropriate time horizon, and encourages fiduciaries to engage in proxy voting.

The final rule moves away from 2020 Trump-era rulemaking by allowing more leeway for fiduciaries to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. Specifically, the rule states that a “fiduciary’s duty of prudence must be based on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis and that such factors may include the economic effects of climate change and other ESG considerations on the particular investment or investment course of action.” The rule makes clear, however, that there is no requirement to affirmatively consider ESG factors, effectively limiting its scope and effect and putting the onus on fiduciaries to determine whether they want to incorporate ESG factors into their assessments of competing investments.

Overview

  • Similar to the Trump-era guidance, there is no definition of “ESG” or an “ESG”-style fund. Debate continues over what kinds of funds can be considered ESG investments, especially in light of the fact that some companies in industries traditionally thought to be inconsistent with ESG conscious investing are now trying to attract ESG investors (e.g. industrials, energy).
  • Fiduciaries are not required to consider ESG factors in selecting investment options. However, the consideration of such factors is not a presumed violation of a fiduciary’s duty of loyalty or prudence. Unlike the prior rule, which suggested that consideration of ESG factors could only be considered if all other pecuniary factors between competing investments were equal (the “tiebreaker” approach), the new rule allows a fiduciary to consider potential financial benefits of ESG investing in all circumstances.
  • Plan fiduciaries may take into account participant preferences in constructing a fund lineup. Therefore, if participants express a desire for ESG investment options, then it may be reasonable for plan fiduciaries to add ESG funds or to consider ESG factors in crafting the fund lineup.
  • ESG-centric funds may be used as qualified default investments (QDIAs) within retirement plans, reversing the prior outright prohibition on use of such funds as QDIAs.
  • In some situations, fiduciaries may be required to exercise shareholder rights when required to protect participant interests. It is unclear whether the exercise of such rights is only limited to situations that have an economic impact on the plan, or applies to additional situations. The clarification suggests that the exercise of proxy voting is not disfavored as an inefficient use of fiduciaries’ time and resources, as the prior iteration of the rule suggested.

Effective Date and Challenges to the Regulation

The new rule became effective in January 2023, except for delayed applicability of proxy voting provisions. However, twenty five state attorneys general have joined a lawsuit in federal court in Texas that seeks to overturn the regulation. The court is in the Fifth Circuit, which historically has been hostile to past Department of Labor regulations (including Obama-era fiduciary rules overturned in 2018, though the ESG rule is less far-reaching than the fiduciary rule and may survive a challenge even in the Fifth Circuit). Congressional Republicans have also introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) review proposal to repeal the regulation that has gained the support of Joe Manchin (D-WV). Although CRA actions are not subject to Senate filibuster rules, they are subject to presidential veto, which President Biden is sure to do if the repeal reaches his desk.

Action Steps

Employers should assume that the ESG rules will remain in effect and engage with plan fiduciaries, advisors, and employees and determine the extent to which ESG considerations should (or should not) enter into fiduciary deliberations when considering plan investment alternatives. Some investment advisors have already begun to include separate ESG scorecards for mutual funds and other investments in their regular plan investment reviews. Fiduciaries should also consider whether and how the approach that is ultimately taken should be reflected in the plan’s investment policy statement. Plans that delegate full control over investments to an independent fiduciary (an ERISA 3(38) advisor) should engage with their advisor to determine whether and the extent to which ESG considerations will be part of that fiduciary’s process, and whether that is consistent with the desires of the plan fiduciaries and participants.

Article By Alex H. Glaser and Timothy Brechtel of Jones Walker LLP

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

© 2023 Jones Walker LLP

EU PFAS Ban Should Raise U.S. Corporate Concerns

On February 7, 2023, the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) unveiled a 200 page proposal that would ban the use of any PFAS in the EU. While the proposal was anticipated by many, the scope of the ban nonetheless drew reactions from a myriad of sectors – from environmentalists to scientists to corporations. U.S. based companies that have any industrial or business interests in the EU must absolutely pay close attention to the EU PFAS ban and consider the impact on business interests.

EU PFAS Ban Proposal

The EU PFAS ban currently proposed would take effect 18 months from the date of enactment; however, the ECHA is contemplating phased-in restrictions of up to 12 years for uses that the group considers challenging to replace in certain applications. The proposal is only the inception of the ECHA regulatory process, which next turns to a public comment period that opens on March 22, 2023 and will run for at least six months. ECHA’s scientific committees to review the proposal and provide feedback. Given the magnitude of comments expected and the likely hurdles that the ECHA will face in finalizing the proposal, it is not expected that the proposal would be finalized prior to 2025.

The EU PFAS ban seeks to prohibit the use of over 10,000 PFAS types, excluding only a sub-class of PFAS that have been deemed “fully degradable.” The proposal indicates: “…the restriction proposal is tailored to address the manufacture, placing on the market, as well as the use of PFASs as such and as constituents in other substances, in mixtures and in articles above a certain concentration. All uses of PFASs are covered by this restriction proposal, regardless of whether they have been specifically assessed by the Dossier Submitters and/or are mentioned in this report or not, unless a specific derogation has been formulated.” (emphasis added) Several specific types of uses and consumer product applicability would be included in the first phase of the proposed ban, including cosmetics, food packaging, clothing and cookware. This first phase of the ban implementation would include uses where alternatives are known, but not yet widely available, which is the reason why the first phase would take effect within 5 years. The second phase of the ban anticipates a 12 year period of time for ban implementation and encompasses uses where alternatives to PFAS are not currently known. Significantly for U.S. business, the proposed ban includes imported goods.

Impact On U.S. Companies

In 2022, U.S. companies exported just shy of $350 billion in goods to the EU. In many instances, companies do not deliberately, intentionally, or knowingly add or utilize PFAS in finished products that are sent to the EU. However, PFAS may be used in manufacturing processes that inadvertently contaminate goods with PFAS. In addition, many U.S. companies rely on overseas companies for supply chain sourcing. Quite commonly, supply chain sources outside of the U.S. do not voluntarily provide chemical composition information for components or goods that they supply. Inquiring of those companies for such information, or certifications that the good contain no PFAS, can be extremely difficult. Getting overseas companies to provide such information often proves impossible and even when certifications are made, the devil may be in the details in terms of what is actually being certified. For example, certifying that goods contain “no hazardous substances” or “no hazardous PFAS” sound reassuring, but by what measure of “hazardous” is the statement being made? Under what country’s regulations? Using which scientific definition? The result of all of these complexities may be that many U.S. based companies need to test their products themselves, which not only increases time to market issues and financial costs associated with production, but also risks to the companies doing business in the U.S. that they may open themselves up to environmental pollution or personal injury lawsuits by conducting such testing. In addition, alternatives may not be as cost effective as PFAS, which impacts businesses and has the potential trickle-down impact of passing some of the costs on to consumers.

While debate continues in the U.S. as to the scientific validity of the “whole class” approach to regulating PFAS (of which there are over 12,000 types according to the EPA), the EU PFAS ban leapfrogs the U.S. debate stage and goes directly to proposing a regulation that would embrace such a “whole class” regulatory scheme. Without a doubt, chemical manufacturers, industrial and manufacturing companies, and some in the science community are expected to strenuously oppose such an approach to regulations for PFAS. The underlying arguments will follow ones advanced and debated already in the U.S. – i.e., not all chemicals act identically, nor have the vast majority of PFAS been shown to date to present health concerns. Proper scientific method does not permit sweeping attributions of testing on legacy PFAS like PFOA and PFOS to be extrapolated and applied to all PFAS. The EU’s response to this via their proposal is that the costs of remediating PFAS from the environment are significant enough that it warrants regulating PFAS as a class to avoid costly, decades-long, and potentially repetitive remediation work in the EU.

Conclusions

It is of the utmost importance for businesses to evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate these compounds in the U.S. and abroad. One major point of contention among members of various industries is whether to regulate PFAS as a class or as individual compounds.  While each PFAS compound has a unique chemical makeup and impacts the environment and the human body in different ways, some groups argue PFAS should be regulated together as a class because they interact with each other in the body, thereby resulting in a collective impact. Other groups argue that the individual compounds are too diverse and that regulating them as a class would be over restrictive for some chemicals and not restrictive enough for others.

Companies should remain informed so they do not get caught off guard. States are increasingly passing PFAS product bills that differ in scope. For any manufacturers, especially those who sell goods overseas, it is important to understand how the various standards among countries will impact them, whether PFAS is regulated as individual compounds or as a class. Conducting regular self-audits for possible exposure to PFAS risk and potential regulatory violations can result in long term savings for companies and should be commonplace in their own risk assessment.

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review

Nigeria’s Energy Sector: Looking Back at 2022 and Looking Ahead in 2023

We review the key events of 2022 in Nigeria’s energy sector – a year that saw significant steps in the implementation of PIA, intermittent M&A activity and the continuing effects of crude theft. We also consider what we can expect in 2023, ahead of what appears to be Nigeria’ closest presidential election yet.

2022: What happened in legal matters?

The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) entered its second year of effectiveness and continued its slow march of implementation . The most notable step was the official “relaunch” of The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation as NNPC Limited in July in a high profile ceremony led by President Buhari. As mandated in the PIA, NNPC Limited was incorporated as a new CAMA company which is wholly owned by the Nigerian government. Key consequences of this transition include:

  • Commercial entity: NNPC Limited is a limited liability company (rather than a state-owned and state-funded corporation) and is intended to operate as a commercial entity. It is expected to publish annual reports and audited accounts and declare dividends to its shareholders – the Nigerian government, and therefore should remain a vital contributor to state revenues.

  • Independence from government and self supporting: The new NNPC Limited is independent and should not depend on government support for its operations. It is expected to raise its own funds, which may lead to wider adoption of the incorporated joint venture model (as provided for, but is not mandatory, under PIA). Whether this will help unlock NNPC’s capability to be a functioning and cash call paying partner in its joint operations remains to be seen. The extent of actual government control and direction over NNPC Limited will also only become clear through practice. PIA retains (for now) total government ownerships of NNPC Limited and control over the selection of its management team.

  • Royalty-paying entity: NNPC Limited is, like any other oil and company operating in Nigeria, required to pay its share of all fees, rents, royalties, profit oil shares and taxes to the government in relation to any participating interests it holds in petroleum leases or licences.

NNPC Limited’s first actions as a commercial entity were notable: these included exercising pre-emption rights over a 40% stake in OML 86 and OML 88 and buying OVH Energy’s downstream assets (giving NNPC access to 380 fuel stations and eight liquefied petroleum gas plants), along with other purported pre-emptions over upstream M&A transactions. NNPC Limited has partnered with Afreximbank to raise US$5 billion to support NNPC Limited’s upstream business and energy transition plans.  NNPC Limited also made senior appointments in 2022 with Senator Margery Chuba Okadigbo as chair and Mele Kyari continuing as CEO.

Another consequential step in PIA implementation was the promulgation of the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Host Communities Development Regulations in June, setting out the requirements for the establishment and funding of host community development trusts. The new trust structure was one of the more controversial parts of PIA, with licence holders required to pay into the trust a levy of 3% of their actual annual operating expenditure of the preceding financial year in the upstream petroleum operations affecting the host communities for which the fund was established.

What happened in politics / regulatory matters?

The continuing impact of the global pandemic, the war in Ukraine, rising energy costs and the consequences of crude theft and spills made for a challenging final year in office for President Buhari.

Progress was made on some of Nigeria’s key gas projects that form part of the “Decade of Gas” programme. Construction is under way on Nigeria LNG’s Train 7 project, which promises to increase LNG production capacity by 35%. The Assa North-Ohaji South Gas project moves closer to completion and promises to accelerate Nigeria’s transition towards cleaner fuels and improve availability of natural gas for power generation.

New projects were also lined up: Nigerian Minister of State for Petroleum Resources Timipre Sylva, alongside the Ministers of Energy of Niger and Algeria signed a memorandum of understanding to build an over 4,000km trans-Saharan gas pipeline at an estimated cost of US$13 billion. The pipeline is intended to start in Nigeria and end in Algeria and be connected to existing pipelines that run to Europe.

The government launched its energy transition plan in 2022 as it works towards Nigeria’s commitment to reach net zero by 2060 and provide access to affordable, reliable and sustainable energy to all of its citizens by 2030. Vice President H.E Yemi Osinbajo said that Nigeria would need to spend an additional US$10 billion per annum on energy projects. Nigeria’s federal minister of power, Engr. Abubakar D. Aliyu also announced new renewable energy policies: the national renewable energy and energy efficiency policy, the national renewable energy action plan, the national energy efficiency action plan and the sustainable energy for all action agenda.

Crude theft was rampant in 2022 and remains a huge critical and unresolved issue for Nigeria, resulting in the shutdown of two of Nigeria’s major pipelines in July. Its impact is significant: the petroleum regulator estimated that Nigeria suffered a US$1 billion loss in revenue in the first quarter of 2022 as a result, and the (attempted) flight of international oil companies from the worst-affected onshore acreage has continued.

What deal activity happened?

Panoro Energy received government approval for the sale of its interest in OML 113 to PetroNor at the start of the year. The Majors divestment plans continued but encountered significant delays, with some being indefinitely postponed and others becoming mired in regulatory approval roadblocks and facing the new appetite of NNPC to assert purported pre-emptory rights.

What is expected in 2023?

  • Politics: The 2023 elections loom large, with the Presidential and National Assembly elections commencing on 25 February and Governorship and State House elections following on 11 March. The Presidential election is presently too close to call and we make no predictions. The onset of electioneering will slow regulatory decision making. International investments may pause until the election outcome is decided, key appointments made and the direction of economic and energy policies are explained.

  • Legal: Industry participants will continue to grapple with the new PIA regime, while its implementation continues over the coming year. Expected key steps include:

    • The deadline for voluntary conversion of existing OPLs and OMLs into their new forms was set for February 2023. Licence holders will need to decide whether to adopt early conversion, balancing the extent of improved PIA fiscal terms against the consequences, including termination of all outstanding arbitration and court cases related to the relevant OPL / OML, removal of any stability provisions or guarantees given by NNPC, and relinquishment of no less than 60% of the acreage. If not converted by this date, then it becomes mandatory on licence expiry / renewal.

    • The deadline for segregation of upstream, midstream and downstream operations also falls in February. Any midstream and downstream activities that were being carried out as part of upstream operations require the grant of a new midstream / downstream licence.

  • Regulatory: A new licensing round covering seven deepwater blocks has been announced for 2023, marking Nigeria’s first offshore bid round in 15 years. A pre-bid conference is taking place this month with pre-qualification applications due by the end of January.

  • Transaction activity: Upstream deals may need to wait for the dust from the 2023 election to settle, but there should be a resumption of the divestment programmes of the Majors in 2023.  Outside of M&A, Nigeria is due to go to trial in London in January 2023 as it seeks to overturn an approximately US$11 billion (including interest) arbitration award won by Process and Industrial Developments Ltd in relation to a 2010 gas project agreement. The award is now worth about a third of Nigeria’s foreign reserves.

  • Projects: Following significant delays, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we understand that the Dangote refinery is expected to be officially commissioned by President Buhari in January and start up mid-2023. First gas from both the Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano pipeline and from Seplat’s Assa North-Ohaji South Gas project is forecast for the first half of 2023.

© 2023 Bracewell LLP

New Climate Guidance Issued to Federal Agencies Conducting Environmental Impact Analyses

Overview

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

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

GHG Guidance

Quantifying a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions

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

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

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

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

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

Identifying Reasonable Alternatives and Potential Mitigation Measures

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

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

Examples

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

Conclusion

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

FOOTNOTES

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

2. Id.

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

4. GHG Guidance at 1,201.

5. Id. at 1,202-03.

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

7. Id. at 1,205.

8. Id. at 1,204.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 1,206.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 1,202.

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

15. Id. at 1,208.

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

© 2023 Bracewell LLP

Federal PFAS Drinking Water Standards: 2023 Is the Year

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

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

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

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

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

PFAS Medical Monitoring Goes To State Supreme Court

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

PFAS Medical Monitoring Costs – The Current Landscape

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

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

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

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

PFAS Medical Monitoring In New Hampshire

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

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

Impact On Companies

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

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

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

EPA’s Contaminant List Includes All PFAS

We previously reported on the EPA’s announcement for its Draft Fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5), which contemplated listing all PFAS as an entire class on the Contaminant List. On October 28, 2022, the EPA issued its prepublication version of the final CCL 5 rule. The EPA’s contaminant list final version is the first step in the Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory process, which will allow the EPA to begin its assessment into any of the over 12,000 PFAS as to whether they should be included in a drinking water enforceable limit. Such a move would build upon the EPA’s current progress towards regulating PFOA and PFOS with an enforceable drinking water limit, and open the door to significant future enforcement action and litigation.

EPA’s Contaminant List and PFAS

On October 28, 2022, the EPA announced its Final Fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5). The CCL is a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations, but are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. Contaminants listed on the CCL may require future regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). On the CCL 5 are 66 individual chemicals, but notably PFAS as an entire class are also listed on the CCL 5. Simply because PFAS are listed on the CCL 5 does not guarantee that regulation will occur; however, it does open doors to research that are not otherwise available without the listing on the CCL.

The EPA’s contaminant list rule is not the only step the agency has taken with respect to PFAS and drinking water, but developing the CCL is the first step under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in potentially regulating drinking water contaminants. SDWA requires EPA to publish a list of currently unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and that may require regulation. EPA must publish a CCL every five years. The CCL does not create or impose regulatory burden on public water systems or state, local, or Tribal governments. EPA has completed four rounds of CCLs since 1996. The last cycle of CCL, CCL 4, was published in November 2016. EPA began the development of the CCL 5 in 2018 by asking the public to nominate chemicals, microbes, or other materials for consideration for the CCL 5.

Impact On Businesses and Litigation

Many companies assume that any regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act will not impact them, as virtually no industries, aside from water utilities, have any direct impact on drinking water. However, this belief provides a false sense of security that must immediately be dispelled. There are three specific ways that drinking water limits for PFAS will trigger scrutiny on environmental practices of businesses: (1) elffluent discharges into water sources; (2) waste sent to landfills that may leach into drinking water sources; and (3) properties abutting or in the vicinity of water sources.

Direct industry effluent discharges into water sources (which may not be drinking water sources, but may feed into drinking water sources) will be the low-hanging fruit target for local environmental agencies at the state level. Companies must ensure that they have all permitting in order, and it is advisable that the permitting specifically encompasses PFAS. Failing to do so will cause issues down the line when local environmental regulatory bodies look to determine, even retroactively, who PFAS water polluters are or were, as those agencies seek to hold businesses responsible for the costs associated with cleaning up PFAS in drinking water.

Companies that send their industrial waste to landfills are also well advised to do a full compliance check. While many companies do not use PFAS directly in their own manufacturing processes, do the parts or other raw materials used in the manufacturing process have PFAS contamination issues? If so, a company could unknowingly send PFAS-laden industrial waste products to landfills, and so these are questions that companies must get answers to. Over time, it is possible that the PFAS may leach out of the landfill and find their way into local water sources. Environmental regulatory agencies will look to these sites, the owners of the sites, and potentially companies sending waste to the sites as responsible parties for PFAS contamination in waterways.

Finally, even businesses having nothing to do with PFAS or manufacturing from which PFAS could be a contaminant need to follow news regarding PFAS regulations. For example, has the property on which your business sits ever had fires that have required a local fire department to extinguish flames using foam (historically, a PFAS containing product)? What did the owner of the site prior to you use the site for? Were there possible PFAS contamination issues stemming from that prior business? Did your due diligence reports and tests when purchasing the property take PFAS into consideration? If PFAS were a contaminant on the land on which your business now operates, local environmental agencies will pursue cleanup costs from any such business regardless of knowledge or intent, and regardless of whether the PFAS issues were the result of a prior company on the site. These investigations and remediations can be extremely expensive and disruptive to businesses.

Should the EPA broaden its regulations for PFAS in drinking water to include more than PFOA and PFOS, this will trigger considerable enforcement action at the state level to identify responsible parties and ensure that the parties pay for remediation costs. Historically, this has also led to civil litigation, as companies identified as responsible parties litigate the percent allocation that they are responsible for the alleged pollution, and look to bring in additional companies to reduce allocation shares for remediation costs.

Conclusion

Future regulatory steps for certain PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act will require states to act (and some states may still enact stronger regulations than the EPA). Both the federal and the state level regulations will impact businesses and industries of many kinds, even if their contribution to drinking water contamination issues may seem on the surface to be de minimus. In states that already have PFAS drinking water standards enacted, businesses and property owners have already seen local environmental agencies scrutinize possible sources of PFAS pollution much more closely than ever before, which has resulted in unexpected costs. Companies absolutely must begin preparing now for regulatory actions that will have significant financial impacts down the road.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Proposes New Regulations Creating General Eagle “Take” Permits for Certain Wind Energy and Power Line Infrastructure Projects

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently published a proposed rule revising regulations that authorize permit issuance for eagle incidental take and eagle nest take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (the “Act”). In addition to retaining the individual permits already available under the Act, the new rule proposes creation of a “general” permit for qualifying wind energy and power line infrastructure projects.

The Act generally prohibits the “take,”[1] possession, and transportation of bald eagles and golden eagles, except pursuant to federal regulations. However, the Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations to permit the take of these eagle species for various purposes. Under the current regulations, there are 2 permit types for the incidental take of eagles and eagle nests, which are issued on an individual, project-specific basis. Due, in part, to inefficiencies in the application review and approval process, issuance of these project-specific eagle take permits has – historically – been relatively rare. The Service acknowledges that, while participation in the permit program by wind energy projects has increased since 2016, it still remains well below the Service’s expectations.

According to the Service, the purpose of the new regulations is to: (i) increase the efficiency and effectiveness of permitting; (ii) facilitate and improve compliance with the regulations; (iii) and increase the conservation benefit for eagles. The Service proposes to do this by creating a general permit program to streamline the permitting process and provide more timely and cost-effective coverage for affected industries.

General permits would be available to authorize incidental take by activities that occur frequently enough for the Service to have developed a standardized approach to permitting. Specifically, the Service proposes activity-specific eligibility criteria and permit requirements in 4 new sections based on activity and type of take: (i) incidental eagle take for permitting wind energy; (ii) incidental eagle take for permitting power lines; (iii) bald eagle disturbance take; and (iv) bald eagle nest take. As part of the revised application process, a general permit applicant would self-identify as eligible and register with the Service. The applicant is then required to submit an application containing all requested information and fees, as well as certification that the applicant meets the eligibility criteria and would implement permit conditions and reporting requirements.

Two particular proposed general permits – for wind energy and power line projects – could prove particularly useful for renewable energy developers.

Wind Energy Projects

The core general permit eligibility criterion for wind energy projects would be a relative eagle abundance threshold, which a project would need to be below in order to qualify for a general permit. The proposed rule includes specific abundance thresholds for bald and golden eagles, applicable during 5 defined portions of the year. For project eligibility, seasonal bald or golden eagle abundance at all existing or proposed turbine locations must be lower than all 5 seasonal thresholds listed. Presently, the Service estimates that nearly 80% of all existing wind-energy turbines in the coterminous United States are located in areas under the proposed relative abundance thresholds for both species and thus eligible for a general permit under this proposal. The Service plans to offer publicly available online mapping resources depicting areas that qualify. However, at this time, we note that under the proposed rule, Alaska would be excluded from the general permitting program.

In addition to falling below the relative eagle abundance thresholds, wind energy projects would also need to be sited more than 660 feet from bald eagle nests and more than 2 miles from golden eagle nests to be eligible for a general permit.

For existing projects where not all turbines are located within an area below the designated thresholds of relative abundance, the project operator would need to apply for an individual permit and request consideration for a general permit in the application. The Service would review the project and issue a letter of authorization if it determines it is “appropriate” to extend general permit coverage.

Although the Service has not yet promulgated a complete set of conditions for wind energy project general permits, the proposed rule requires permittees to implement all practicable avoidance and minimization measures to reduce the likelihood of take. Permittees would also be subject to a 4 discovered-eagle permit condition, under which discovery of 4 eagle mortalities at a wind energy project covered by a general permit would prohibit the project from reapplying for additional 5-year general permits. Such a project would have to apply for an individual permit.

Power Lines

In the proposed rule, the Service acknowledged that it has sufficient understanding of how eagles interact with power lines to develop a general permit for eagle take resulting from power-line infrastructure.

While the proposed rule does not include detailed eligibility criteria, the Service contemplates 6 key conditions for the new power line general permit:

  1. All new construction and reconstruction of pole infrastructure must be electrocution-safe for bald eagles and golden eagles, except as limited by human health and safety.
  2. All new construction and reconstruction of pole infrastructure must be electrocution-safe for bald eagles and golden eagles, except as limited by human health and safety. All new construction and reconstruction of transmission lines must consider eagle nesting, foraging, and roosting areas in siting and design, as limited by human health and safety. Specifically, the Service recommends siting utility infrastructure at least 2 miles from golden eagle nests, 660 feet from a bald eagle nest, 660 feet from a bald eagle roost, and 1 mile from a bald eagle or golden eagle foraging area.
  3. A reactive retrofit strategy must be developed that governs retrofitting high-risk poles when an eagle electrocution is discovered. A reactive retrofit strategy responds to incidents in which eagles are killed or injured by electrocution.
  4. A proactive retrofit strategy must be developed and implemented to convert all existing infrastructure to be electrocution-safe, prioritizing poles identified as the highest risk to eagles.
  5. A collision-response strategy must be implemented for all eagle collisions with power lines. If an eagle collision is detected, a strategy must outline the steps to identify and assess the collision, consider options for response, and implement a response.
  6. An eagle shooting response strategy must be developed and implemented when an eagle shooting is discovered near power-line infrastructure.

Service review and approval would not be required prior to obtaining coverage under either of these general permits. Rather, according to the Service, the general permit authorization would be “generated” using permit conditions and reporting requirements for the proposed activity. Under the proposed rule, upon submitting an application, the Service will “automatically issue a general permit to authorize the take requested in the application.”

The Service intends to conduct annual audits for a small percentage of all general permits to ensure applicants are appropriately interpreting and applying eligibility criteria. The maximum term for wind energy and power line project general permits would be 5 years; after expiration, with certain narrow exceptions, projects could reapply for new 5-year general permits.

Finally, because the Service will undertake environmental review to support its final rule, obtaining coverage under the general permits would not require project-specific environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, applicants for the general permit must certify, among other things, that: (i) the activity for which take is to be authorized does not affect a property that is listed, or is eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places; or (ii) that the applicant has obtained, and is in compliance with, a written agreement with the relevant State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer that outlines all measures the applicant will undertake to mitigate or prevent adverse effects to the historic property.

The Service is accepting comments on the proposed rule until November 29, 2022. The Service hosted an initial listening session for the general public on October 20th, and will host an additional listening session on November 3, 2022.

FOOTNOTES

[1]Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “take” is defined as any action “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

Article By S. Keith Garner and Daniel S. Maroon of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

California PFAS Legislation Will Dramatically Impact Businesses

We previously reported on three significant pieces of California PFAS legislation that were before California’s Governor Newsom for ratification. Two of the bills were passed, which means that several categories of products will have applicable PFAS bans. The third bill was not signed by the Governor, which would have required companies to report certain data to the state for goods  sold in or otherwise brought into California that contain PFAS.

With increasing attention being given to PFAS in consumer goods in the media, scientific community, and in state legislatures, the California PFAS bills underscore the importance of companies anywhere in the manufacturing or supply chain for consumer goods to immediately assess the impact of the proposed PFAS legislation on corporate practices, and make decisions regarding continued use of PFAS in products, as opposed to substituting for other substances.  At the same time, companies impacted by the PFAS legislation must be aware that the new laws pose risks to the companies involvement in PFAS litigation in both the short and long term.

California PFAS Bills

One of our prior reports was on the first significant PFAS bill that Governor Newsom was expected to sign into law – AB 2771 – and which was indeed passed into law. The bill prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, hold, or offer for sale any cosmetics product that contains any intentionally added PFAS. The law would go into effect on January 1, 2025. The bill defines a cosmetics products as “an article for retail sale or professional use intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.”

The second bill signed into law by the Governor is AB 1817, which bans the use of PFAS in textiles manufactured and sold in California. More specifically, the bill prohibits, beginning January 1, 2025, any person from “manufacturing, distributing, selling, or offering for sale in the state any new, not previously owned, textile articles that contain regulated PFAS” and requires a manufacturer to use the least toxic alternative when removing PFAS in textile articles to comply with these provisions. The bill requires a manufacturer of a textile article to provide persons that offer the product for sale or distribution in the state with a certificate of compliance stating that the textile article is in compliance with these provisions and does not contain any regulated PFAS. The bill specifically regulates three categories of textiles:

(1) “Textile articles” means textile goods of a type customarily and ordinarily used in households and businesses, and include, but are not limited to, apparel, accessories, handbags, backpacks, draperies, shower curtains, furnishings, upholstery, beddings, towels, napkins, and tablecloths;

(2) “Outdoor apparel” means clothing items intended primarily for outdoor activities, including, but not limited to, hiking, camping, skiing, climbing, bicycling, and fishing; and

(3) “Apparel”, defined as “clothing items intended for regular wear or formal occasions, including, but not limited to, undergarments, shirts, pants, skirts, dresses, overalls, bodysuits, costumes, vests, dancewear, suits, saris, scarves, tops, leggings, school uniforms, leisurewear, athletic wear, sports uniforms, everyday swimwear, formal wear, onesies, bibs, diapers, footwear, and everyday uniforms for workwear…outdoor apparel and outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions.

The bill that California’s Governor vetoed was AB 2247, which would have established reporting requirements for companies that utilize products or substances that contain PFAS and which are used in California in the stream of commerce. “The bill would [have] require[d], on or before July 1, 2026, and annually thereafter, a manufacturer, as defined, of PFAS or a product or a product component containing intentionally added PFAS that, during the prior calendar year, is sold, offered for sale, distributed, or offered for promotional purposes in, or imported into, the state to register the PFAS or the product or product component containing intentionally added PFAS, and specified other information, on the publicly accessible data collection interface.”

Impact of California PFAS Legislation On Businesses

California PFAS legislation places some of the most significant and widely used consumer products in the crosshairs with respect to PFAS. While other states have banned or otherwise regulated PFAS in certain specific consumer goods, California’s bills are noteworthy given the economic impact that it will have, considering that California is the fifth largest economy in the world.

It is of the utmost importance for businesses along the whole cosmetics supply chain to evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate these compounds. One major point of contention among members of various industries is whether to regulate PFAS as a class or as individual compounds.  While each PFAS compound has a unique chemical makeup and impacts the environment and the human body in different ways, some groups argue PFAS should be regulated together as a class because they interact with each other in the body, thereby resulting in a collective impact. Other groups argue that the individual compounds are too diverse and that regulating them as a class would be over restrictive for some chemicals and not restrictive enough for others.

Companies should remain informed so they do not get caught off guard. States are increasingly passing PFAS product bills that differ in scope. For any manufacturers, especially those who sell goods interstate, it is important to understand how those various standards will impact them, whether PFAS is regulated as individual compounds or as a class. Conducting regular self-audits for possible exposure to PFAS risk and potential regulatory violations can result in long term savings for companies and should be commonplace in their own risk assessment.

Article By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law

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

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.