Tag: environment

“Broken Link in the Chain of Liability”: MTCA Decision Highlights Intricacies of Corporate Law

Last week, in a decision highlighting the overlay of environmental and corporate law, a Washington federal district court dismissed claims seeking remediation costs, attorneys’ fees, and a declaratory judgment on liability under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) by the current owner of a service station in Cle Elem against Chevron Corp., Chevron USA, Inc., and unnamed “predecessor companies and subsidiaries.” Short Stop Shell, LLC v. Chevron Corp., No. 1:19-cv-03103-RMP, Dkt. No. 43 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2019) (Order Granting in Part & Denying in Part Defendants’ Mot. to Dismiss & Denying Plaintiff’s Mot. for Summ. J.). The court rejected the allegation that the Chevron entities were corporate successors to Texaco, Inc., which was believed to be responsible for contamination at the service station.

The court’s findings reflect a limitation on the sweeping liability under MTCA and similar statutes, the relevance of corporate transactions in minimizing such liability, and the potential difficulty of identifying proper corporate defendants before filing lawsuits for cost recovery at contaminated sites.

Site Background – Petroleum Contamination at Service Station

The claims alleged that, until 1984, Texaco owned and operated the service station where contamination had been disposed or released at the property. In 2000, Texaco agreed to indemnify an owner of the service station for “actual petroleum contamination originating from the Property in excess of clean up levels [that] originated from Texaco’s operation of a gasoline … facility … or from deliveries of motor fuels to the station ….” Then, in 2001, Chevron Corp. acquired Texaco in a “reverse triangular merger.”

The plaintiff acquired the property in 2012, decommissioned several underground storage tanks alleged to be leaking, and incurred over $275,000 in remediation costs.

Court Decision – “Broken Link in the Chain of Liability”

Ultimately, the court concluded that the “reverse triangular merger,” in which Texaco merged with a subsidiary of Chevron Corp., did not cause Chevron to assume Texaco’s liabilities. Rather, Texaco remained a “separate entity” as a Chevron subsidiary and Chevron was not a successor to Texaco’s liabilities. The Court found further that suing unnamed defendants was a “disfavored practice” and agreed to strike the “John Doe”-style pleading that included a general reference to the defendants’ “predecessor companies and subsidiaries.”

The court also rejected a judicial estoppel theory that the defendants had already accepted liability “through their actions,” which included interactions between Chevron EMC, a Chevron subsidiary “that manages environmental matters for affiliated companies, including Texaco,” and Ecology. Notably, the court determined that even if, in an ambiguous exchange with Ecology in 2003, Chevron had accepted “potentially liable person status,” that such an acceptance did not amount to a “representation” that the defendants had “expressly assumed Texaco’s liabilities.”

However, litigation is likely to continue. In order to “properly allege a theory of liability,” the court granted the plaintiff leave to incorporate allegations in an amended complaint that the defendants “delivered gasoline products to tanks” that they “knew were leaking.”

© 2019 Beveridge & Diamond PC
For more in environmental contamination, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

NIEHS-Funded Research Finds that Graphene Shield Shows Promise in Blocking Mosquito Bites

On August 26, 2019, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) announced that the results of an NIEHS-funded study show that graphene could provide alternatives to chemicals in insect repellant and protective clothing.  The study, “Mosquito Bite Prevention through Graphene Barrier Layers,” was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

According to the abstract, the researchers hypothesized that graphene films may provide mosquito bite protection for light, fiber-based fabrics.  The researchers investigated the fundamental interactions between graphene-based films and the mosquito species Aedes aegypti through a combination of live mosquito experiments, needle penetration force measurements, and mathematical modeling of mechanical puncture phenomena.  The abstract states that “[t]he results show that graphene or graphene oxide nanosheet films in the dry state are highly effective at suppressing mosquito biting behavior on live human skin.  Surprisingly, behavioral assays indicate that the primary mechanism is not mechanical puncture resistance, but rather interference with host chemosensing.”

The researchers propose that the interference is “a molecular barrier effect that prevents Aedes from detecting skin-associated molecular attractants trapped beneath the graphene films and thus prevents the initiation of biting behavior.”  According to the abstract, placing water or human sweat on the external film surface circumvents the molecular barrier effect.  In this scenario, the abstract states, “pristine graphene films continue to protect through puncture resistance — a mechanical barrier effect — while graphene oxide films absorb the water and convert to mechanically soft hydrogels that become nonprotective.”

©2019 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
This article was written by Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more environmental research, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.

Zero Waste Act Introduced By U.S. Representative Omar

On July 25, 2019, U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) introduced the Zero Waste Act, which intends to create a federal grant program to invest in solutions that address waste. The bill, if passed, will go towards recycling infrastructure or the creation of partnerships with local businesses focused on waste reduction. Representative Omar believes the bill will not only create jobs, but also reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, grow domestic manufacturing, clean waterways, save energy, ensure safety from health hazards, and grow the U.S. economy.
Omar’s bill has been endorsed by several organizations, including the City of Minneapolis, Eureka Recycling, Climate Generation, and Surfrider Foundation, among others. Presenting this bill through the lens that waste is an environmental justice issue, Representative Omar stated that “[a]ddressing the waste crisis is critical to preventing further damage to our climate—it is integral to racial justice and a clean, equitable future.” At a time where climate change debates have been of high interest to the U.S. population, in particular as the presidential candidate debates continue, it will be interesting to see whether this bill is passed. The full text of the bill can be accessed here.
©2019 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more environmental legislation see the Environmental, Energy & Resources page on the National Law Review.

FWS Proposes New Conservation Measures in Advance of Potential Monarch Butterfly Listing

The Monarch Butterfly is a species of concern, but not currently “listed” as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. In advance of the potential, and some would say likely, listing of the Monarch Butterfly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) has published for public comment a program it hopes will attract landowners and developers in the butterfly’s anticipated habitat who wish to avoid future regulatory concerns related to the eventual listing of the butterfly. The program is available for public comments until June 14, 2019. More information on the program can be found here.

If accepted, non-federal landowners can voluntarily agree to undertake land management activities to support the conservation of the butterfly in exchange for assurances that no additional conservation measures or land, water, or resource use restrictions will be imposed under the Endangered Species Act. Benefits of this voluntary program include incidental take authorization should the butterfly become a listed species and positive public relations.

Examples of the proposed conservation measures include:

  1. Establishing and using native seed mixes containing a diversity of wildflowers including milk weed,

  2. Minimizing use of grazing in monarch habitat during peak breeding and migration periods,

  3. Removing woody plants in densely covered shrub areas and invasive plant species to promote grassland habitats,

  4. Sustaining idle lands with suitable habitat, and

  5. Using conservation mowing to enhance floral resources and habitat.

Please note the agreement includes activities supporting the operations of existing rights of ways and associated lands but not the construction of new pipelines.

 

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
This post was written by Laura M. Goldfarb of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC.
Read more Environmental news on our environmental type of law page.

EPA Issues New Emergency Response Requirements for Community Water Systems

On March 27, 2019,  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the Federal Register Notice for New Risk Assessments and Emergency Response Plans for Community Water Systems describing the requirements and deadlines for community (drinking) water systems to develop or update risk and resilience assessments (RRAs) and emergency response plans (ERPs) under  America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) which was signed into law on October 23, 2018 and amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).   Additionally, as described below, preparation of an ERP will enable owners or operators of community water systems to apply for grants from EPA for fiscal years 2020 and 2021.

Covered water systems.  Community water systems that serve more than 3,300 people are covered by these requirements. EPA interprets the population served to mean all persons served by the system directly or indirectly, including the population served by consecutive water systems, such as wholesalers.

Deadlines.  Each covered Community Water System completing an RRA and ERP must send certifications of completion by the dates listed below, and then review for necessary updates every 5 years thereafter:

Population Served by the Community Water System

Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) Certification

Emergency Response Plan (ERP)

The dates below are 6 months from the date of the RRA certification, based on a utility submitting a risk assessment on the final due date. Depending on actual RRA certification, ERP due dates could be sooner.

≥100,000

March 31, 2020

September 30, 2020

50,000-99,999

December 31, 2020

June 30, 2021

3,301-49,999

June 30, 2021

December 30, 2021

Risk and Resilience Assessment Requirements.  Each covered community water system must assess the risks to, and resilience of, its system including:

  • risk to the system from malevolent acts and natural hazards
  • resilience of the pipes and constructed conveyances, physical barriers, source water, water collection and intake, pretreatment, treatment, storage and distribution facilities;
  • electronic, computer, or other automated systems (including the security of such systems) which are utilized by the system;
  • monitoring practices of the system;
  • financial infrastructure of the system;
  • use, storage, or handling of various chemicals by the system; and
  • operation and maintenance of the system.

Emergency Response Plan Requirements (ERP). No later than six months after certifying completion of its risk and resilience assessment, each system must prepare or revise, where necessary, an emergency response plan that incorporates the findings of the assessment.  The ERP must include:

  • strategies and resources to improve the resilience of the system, including the physical security and cybersecurity of the system;
  • plans and procedures that can be implemented, and identification of equipment that can be utilized, in the event of a malevolent act or natural hazard that threatens the ability of the community water system to deliver safe drinking water;
  • actions, procedures, and equipment which can obviate or significantly lessen the impact of a malevolent act or natural hazard on the public health,  safety, and supply of drinking water provided to communities and individuals, including the development of alternative source water options, relocation of water intakes, and construction of flood protection barriers; and
  • strategies that can be used to aid in the detection of malevolent acts or natural hazards that threaten the security or resilience of the system.

The Federal Register Notice indicates that EPA is not requiring water systems to use any designated standards or methods to complete RRAs or ERPs, provided all of the requirements of the SDWA and AWIA are met.  AWIA already defines resilience and natural hazards. EPA will provide additional tools to foster compliance with its provisions and baseline information regarding malevolent acts no later than August 1, 2019.  With respect to the latter, it is anticipated that the agency will include consideration of acts that may (1) substantially disrupt the ability of the system to provide a safe and reliable supply of drinking water; or (2) otherwise present significant public health or economic concerns to the community served by the system.

Potential Impacts & Next Steps.  Preparation of an ERP will enable the owners or operators of community water systems to apply for grants under the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program, under which EPA may award grants in fiscal years 2020 and 2021.  If consistent with its ERP, a community water system may apply for grant funding for projects that increase resilience, such as:

  • Purchase and installation of equipment for detection of drinking water contaminants or malevolent acts;
  • Purchase and installation of fencing, gating, lighting, or security cameras;
  • Tamper-proofing of manhole covers, fire hydrants, and valve boxes;
  • Purchase and installation of improved treatment technologies and equipment to improve the resilience of the system;
  • Improvements to electronic, computer, financial, or other automated systems and remote systems;
  • Participation in training programs, and the purchase of training manuals and guidance materials relating to security and resilience;
  • Improvements in the use, storage, or handling of chemicals by the community water system;
  • Security screening of employees or contractor support services;
  • Equipment necessary to support emergency power or water supply, including standby and mobile sources; and
  • Development of alternative source water options, relocation of water intakes, and construction of flood protection barriers.

The EPA is currently developing a comprehensive training schedule, which will include both classroom and webinar options.

 

© 2019 Van Ness Feldman LLP.
Read more water infrastructure news on our environmental type of law page.

EPA Sued to Issue Pending Methylene Chloride Prohibition Rule in Final

On January 14, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Public Interest Group; Safer Chemicals, Health Families; and two individuals (plaintiffs) followed up on their earlier notice of intent to sue and filed a complaint against Andrew Wheeler and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compel EPA to perform its “mandatory duty” to “address the serious and imminent threat to human health presented by paint removal products containing methylene chloride.”  Plaintiffs bring the action under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 20(a) which states that “any person may commence a civil action … against the Administrator to compel the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not discretionary.”  Plaintiffs allege that EPA has not performed its mandatory duty under TSCA Sections 6(a) and 7.  TSCA Section 6(a) gives EPA the authority to regulate substances that present “an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” and TSCA Section 7 gives EPA the authority to commence civil actions for seizure and/or relief of “imminent hazards.”  Plaintiffs’ argument to direct EPA to ban methylene chloride is centered on the issue of risk to human health only, however, stating that it presents “an unreasonable risk to human health” as confirmed by EPA.  Under TSCA Section 20(b)(2), plaintiffs are required to submit a notice of intent to sue 60 days prior to filing a complaint which they did on October 31, 2018.

Background

On January 19, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule under TSCA Section 6 to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal (82 Fed. Reg. 7464).  EPA also proposed to prohibit the use of methylene chloride in these commercial uses; to require manufacturers (including importers), processors, and distributors, except for retailers, of methylene chloride for any use to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; and to require recordkeeping.  EPA relied on a risk assessment of methylene chloride published in 2014, the scope of which EPA stated included “consumer and commercial paint and coating removal.”  The proposed rule stated that in the risk assessment, EPA identified risks from inhalation exposure including “neurological effects such as cognitive impairment, sensory impairment, dizziness, incapacitation, and loss of consciousness (leading to risks of falls, concussion, and other injuries)” and, based on EPA’s analysis of worker and consumer populations’ exposures to methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, EPA proposed “a determination that methylene chloride and NMP in paint and coating removal present an unreasonable risk to human health.”  The comment period on the proposed rule was extended several times, ending in May 2017, and in September 2017 EPA held a workshop to help inform EPA’s understanding of methylene chloride use in furniture refinishing.

No further action was taken to issue the rule in final, however, until December 21, 2018, when EPA sent the final rule to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.  On the same day, EPA also sent another rule to OMB for review titled “Methylene Chloride; Commercial Paint and Coating Removal Training, Certification and Limited Access Program,” which has not previously been included in EPA’s Regulatory Agenda; very little is known about this rule.  Plaintiffs do not refer to it in the complaint but there is speculation, based on its title, that this second rule may allow for some commercial uses of methylene chloride.

Commentary

We recall the lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) in 2018 challenging EPA’s draft New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework document as a final rule.  The current action further reflects the commitment of detractors of EPA to use the courts and every other means available to oppose the Administration’s TSCA implementation efforts.  Whether and when this court will respond is unclear.  What is clear is that the case will be closely watched, as the outcome will be an important signal to the TSCA stakeholder community regarding the utility of TSCA Section 20(a)(2) to force non-discretionary EPA actions that the Administration may be disinclined to take.

 

©2019 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

Army Corps Issues Guidance for Dam and Culvert Removal Credits

The Army Corps of Engineers recently issued a Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) that sets out factors that should be considered by district engineers when determining the amount of mitigation credits that may be allowed for removal of dams or other structures in rivers and streams. These mitigation credits may be used or sold as compensatory mitigation required by Army Corps permits issued for projects that result in impacts to waters of the United States.

There are approximately 14,000 dams in New England, many of which were built in the 19th century, and thousands of undersized or poorly designed culverts. These dams and culverts impair river and stream values. The Corps’ mitigation credit RGL is significant because, in the past, when a dam was removed or culvert replaced the positive environmental effects were not easily quantified. Further complicating the mitigation credit analysis is the fact that dam removal or culvert replacement sometimes results in short-term wetland loss.

The new RGL describes specific considerations for making credit determinations. Further, the RGL makes it clear that wetland loss resulting from dam removal will not require compensatory mitigation. Perhaps most importantly, the RGL gives district engineers latitude to determine the number of mitigation credits produced and to consider local conditions in their determinations, although they will still prefer on-site and in-kind mitigation (meaning, to mitigate impacts that occur nearby and are of the same type as the mitigation project, e.g., fish passage credits could be used for fish passage impacts).

For owners that have been considering removing dams or other in-water structures, this guidance may offer opportunities, but we should caution that those opportunities are constrained by limited availability of mitigation banks and the effort needed to create one, by the need for close coordination and agreement with any available in lieu fee programs, and by limited availability of in-kind permittee-responsible mitigation needs. If those constraints can be overcome, the RGL will allow the long-term value of the removal to be considered and more consistently credited and monetized through mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs or, if such programs are not available, for the dam owner’s own mitigation responsibilities.

 

©2018 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

EPA Proposes Affordable Clean Energy Rule

On August 21, 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule pursuant to section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that would establish emission guidelines for states to develop plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil-fired power plants.  The proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP), which EPA is proposing to repeal (in a separate rulemaking) on the grounds that the CPP exceeded the agency’s authority under the CAA.

Core elements of the proposed ACE rule include: (1) a determination of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants; (2) a list of “candidate technologies” states can use when setting CO2 performance standards for affected plants; (3) a new preliminary applicability test for determining whether a physical or operational change made to a power plant may be a “major modification” triggering New Source Review (NSR); and (4) new implementing regulations for establishing emission guidelines under CAA section 111(d).

Section 111(d)

EPA is proposing the ACE rule pursuant to section 111(d) of the CAA.  This section directs EPA to promulgate regulations establishing a federal-state process for setting standards of performance limiting emissions from existing sources for pollutants not otherwise regulated in other specified sections of the CAA.  Implementing section 111(d) is a three-step process.  First, EPA issues a “guideline” for states to use in developing compliance plans that include standards of performance for stationary sources within a particular source category.  The guideline identifies what EPA determines is the BSER for the relevant sources within the source category.  Second, each state submits a plan to EPA that includes standards of performance for the covered sources in the state.  Third, EPA approves or disapproves of the state plans.  If a state fails to submit an approvable plan, the CAA requires EPA to impose a federal plan.

Proposed BSER Determination

EPA is proposing to define BSER for CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants as heat-rate efficiency improvements based on a range of “candidate technologies.”  This “inside the fence” BSER determination reflects a different approach than what was used in the CPP.  The CPP determined the BSER for power plants based on reductions achievable not only through inside-the-fence measures such as heat rate improvements but also through shifting of generation from higher-emitting to lower-emitting or zero-emitting plants.  As noted above, EPA has proposed to find that such an “outside-the-fence” approach to determining BSER exceeds the agency’s authority under the CAA.

EPA has identified a list of the “most impactful” heat rate improvement measures.  EPA is proposing that this list serve as the “candidate technologies” or “checklist” of BSER technologies, equipment upgrades, and best operating and maintenance practices for coal-fired power plants.  These candidate technologies are:

  • Neural Network/Intelligent Sootblowers

  • Boiler Feed Pumps

  • Air Heater and Duct Leakage Control

  • Variable Frequency Drives

  • Blade Path Upgrade (Steam Turbine)

  • Redesign/Replace Economizer

  • Improved Operating and Maintenance Practices

States would consider the above technologies in establishing standards of performance for existing coal-fired power plants.  EPA is proposing that performance standards will set a specific allowable emission rate expressed on a pound CO2 per MWH-gross rate for each affected unit based on the application of the appropriate candidate BSER technologies to each unit.

EPA explains in the proposed rule that it does not have sufficient information to make a BSER determination with respect to heat rate improvements at natural gas-fired simple‑cycle turbines or combined cycle turbines.  The agency is soliciting comment on this issue.  Previously, EPA determined that heat rate improvement measures at natural gas‑fired combustion turbines would not be considered BSER because such measures cannot provide meaningful reductions at reasonable cost.

State Compliance Plans

The proposed rule would provide each state with broad discretion in establishing specific performance standards for particular plants.  The proposal also allows state plans to rely on emission averaging and trading among affected coal‑fired units at a particular plant.  However, EPA has proposed that state plans should not be allowed to incorporate averaging and trading among different plants, such as a state-wide or interstate cap-and-trade program.  Nor will any credit be given for CO2 emissions reductions achieved through increased generation of renewable energy or gas-fired generation not covered under the section 111(d) regulatory program.  The proposed rule explains that such an approach would be inconsistent with EPA’s proposed “inside-the-fence” interpretation of BSER under section 111.

Permitting Under NSR Program

EPA is proposing revisions to the NSR permitting program to make it easier for power plants to adopt heat rate improvements without triggering NSR obligations.  The NSR program is a preconstruction permitting program.  An NSR permit is required not only before construction of a new major stationary source; it is also required before modifying an existing major source if the modification will result in a significant emissions increase of any NSR-regulated pollutant.  Projects that cause a significant increase in annual emissions may trigger onerous NSR permitting requirements, which include installation of state-of-art emission control technologies, prescriptive air quality modeling, and extensive public notice and comment procedures.

To avoid widespread triggering of NSR permitting requirements from heat rate improvement projects undertaken by affected coal‑fired plants, EPA is proposing to amend the NSR regulations to include an hourly emissions increase test.  Under the proposed revisions, a non-excluded physical or operational change to an electricity generating unit would only trigger NSR if the change resulted in an increase in the unit’s maximum hourly emissions rate under procedures proposed in the ACE rule, as well as a significant emission increase in annual emissions under the current NSR regulations.

As drafted, the proposed maximum hourly emission increase test would be available to any electricity generating unit, including natural gas-fired units that would not be subject to regulation under section 111(d).

States with approved NSR programs would have the option but would not be required to adopt the hourly emission increase test ultimately promulgated as part of the NSR provisions in their SIPs.  For those states with delegated NSR programs that are acting on behalf of EPA, the NSR permitting process would have to include any changes that are ultimately made to the federal NSR provisions as they would be administering the federal program.

EPA is proposing that the potential revisions to the NSR permitting program are severable from the rest of the ACE rule.

Implementing Regulations for Emission Guidelines under Section 111(d)

The proposal revises the general implementing regulations for section 111(d) that govern how EPA issues emission guidelines, and how and when states develop and submit their plans.  These changes would apply for all future section 111(d) rules.  Proposed changes include the following:

  • Timing:  The proposal updates timing requirements regarding submission of state plans and EPA action on those state plans.

    • State submissions:  EPA is proposing to provide states three years to develop state plans.  The existing implementing regulations provide nine months.

    • EPA action:  The proposal would allow EPA 12 months to act on a complete state plan submittal.  The existing implementing regulations provide four months.

    • Federal plan:  The proposal would allow EPA two years to issue a federal plan after a finding of a state’s failure to submit an approvable plan.  The existing implementing regulations provide six months.

  • Criteria for state plans:  The proposal has completeness criteria for state plans that include administrative materials and technical support for state implementation of the plan.  EPA would have six months to determine completeness and would make that determination by comparing the state’s submission against the completeness criteria.

  • Variance provisions:  The proposal provides greater flexibility to states to adopt plans that include variances from the EPA guidelines that will allow, among other things, states to take into account the remaining useful life of the unit and other relevant factors in establishing a performance standard for a particular affected unit.

Next Steps

EPA will take comment on the proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and will hold at least one public hearing.  Depending on the exact date of Federal Register publication, this means comments will be due to EPA sometime in late October 2018.

Impacts of EPA Proposal

According to EPA, the proposed ACE rule would reduce the compliance burden by up to $400 million per year when compared to the CPP.  EPA estimates that the ACE rule could reduce overall 2030 CO2 emissions by up to 1.5% from projected levels without the CPP.

 

© 2018 Van Ness Feldman LLP
This post was written by Kyle W. Danish and Stephen C. Fotis  of Van Ness Feldman LLP.

California Commercial Building Owners Required to Submit Energy Use Disclosures by June 1, 2018

AB 802, California’s energy use disclosure law, requires owners of commercial buildings containing more than 50,000 square feet to report their energy performance by June 1, 2018. Building owners who have missed the June 1, 2018, reporting deadline are urged to report as soon as possible. The California Energy Commission (CEC) has the authority to issue fines for noncompliance, after allowing a period of 30 days to correct a violation.

Assembly Bill 802 (AB 802)

AB 802 replaced the State’s prior energy use disclosure law, AB 1103, which had required building owners to make disclosures regarding a building’s energy use at the time of a sale, lease, or finance. (View our previous alert.)

Unlike AB 1103, energy use disclosures are no longer tied to transactions under AB 802. Instead, AB 802 directs the CEC to create an annual, statewide building energy use benchmarking and public disclosure program for (1) all commercial buildings containing over 50,000 square feet gross building area, and (2) all multifamily complexes with 17 or more tenant units that are direct billed for energy.

AB 802 requires annual energy consumption reports from each building. Building owners must authorize their utility provider to record and upload their building’s energy data to EPA’s Portfolio Manager, a free reporting tool provided by the United States EPA that allows building owners to compare their building’s energy efficiency with similar buildings.

Compliance Requirements

Owners of buildings in California that have a gross floor area of 50,000 square feet or greater are required to benchmark their energy performance annually, and report the results to the CEC per the following schedule:

  • For disclosable buildings with no residential utility accounts, reporting is due by June 1, 2018, and annually thereafter.

  • For disclosable buildings with 17 or more residential utility accounts, reporting is due by June 1, 2019, and annually thereafter.

AB 802 also requires that energy utilities provide building-level energy use data to building owners, owners’ agents, and operators upon request for buildings with no residential utility accounts and for buildings with five or more utility accounts. The CEC will publicly disclose some of the reported information beginning in 2019 for buildings with no residential utility accounts, and 2020 for buildings with residential utility accounts.

Implications for Owners of Buildings in Cities with Existing Programs

The cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Los Angeles already have local benchmarking and public disclosure programs whose requirements exceed those of the state program. Per the state regulations, a local jurisdiction may request that the CEC provide an exemption from the state reporting requirement for buildings located in the local jurisdiction. If the exemption is approved, the owners of buildings in that jurisdiction may report to the local jurisdiction only, and will not be required to report to the CEC.

 

© 2010-2018 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

White House Encourages Coordination of Infrastructure Permitting Through One Federal Decision Memorandum

On April 9, 2018, the White House announced that twelve federal agencies had signed the One Federal Decision Memorandum (“MOU”), establishing a coordinated and timely process for environmental reviews of major infrastructure projects. The MOU addresses one of President Trump’s signature policy promises from the 2018 state of the union – to reduce the infrastructure permitting process to at most two years.

The MOU comes in response to Executive Order 13807, signed by the President on August 15, 2017. The Executive Order directed federal agencies to, among other things, develop a two year permitting timeline for “major infrastructure projects,” and designate a “lead agency” to shepherd projects through the permitting process. The President specifically sought to address inefficient and duplicative practices such as multiple agencies producing separate Environmental Impact Statements.

The MOU and its accompanying Implementation Memorandum provide instruction to and agreement among agencies on how to improve the coordination and execution of permitting reviews. Benchmark improvements include:

  • A single Environmental Impact Statement for all agencies

  • A single Record of Decision except in specified circumstances

  • A two-year average time period for concluding all environmental reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects

  • Written concurrences from cooperating agencies at interim milestones in the consolidated Permitting Timetable governi­­­ng the multi-agency review-and-authorization process for a project

In evaluating the potential impact of these actions in comparison to prior initiatives to improve the permitting process, two additional factors should be considered.

First, this Administration appears committed to improving infrastructure permitting beyond issuing these documents. The current actions anticipate further change within the Executive Branch, at the White House’s direction, whereas similar actions under past administrations represented the culmination of an initiative.

Second, specific requirements in the Implementation Memorandum and MOU will require agencies to change their current processes in order to comply, instead of past efforts which largely encouraged Agencies to achieve better results using existing methods.

For example, the new guidance requires written concurrence from cooperating agencies at specific interim milestones within an established, consolidated permitting timetable. The guidance also requires agencies, with some exceptions, to develop a consolidated record supporting the One Federal Decision, instead of isolated administrative records within each agency. Implementing these and other changes will require modification of the status quo for many agencies. Indeed, the guidance calls for signatory agencies to submit plans (within 90 days) to implement the MOU through new guidance or regulations.

The following is a summary of key points from the Implementation Memorandum and MOU and a detailed list of specific provisions.

General Agreements – Outlines the overarching features of the MOU including a requirement for federal agencies to work together to develop a single Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (“ROD”), and to issue all necessary authorization decisions within 90 days of the ROD.

Permitting Timetable – Provides guidance on the milestones to be included in the Permitting Timetable, including estimated milestones for which the project sponsor is to develop and submit complete applications and any other information required for Federal authorization of the project, including required authorization decisions by non-Federal entities.

Agency Roles and Responsibilities – Provides further details on the duties of lead agencies in preparing the federal EIS and outlines roles for cooperating and participating agencies. For example, cooperating agencies may only provide written comment on issues within their substantive areas of expertise.

Scoping and Concurrence Points – Provides for using the NEPA scoping process to develop relevant analyses, studies and engineering designs needed in order for all agencies to be able to sign a single ROD. Requires that the environmental review process be conducted concurrently with the applicable authorization decision processes, and, as such, the lead agency should obtain a written concurrence from all cooperating agencies whose authorization is required for the project at three key milestones: 1) Purpose and Need, 2) Alternatives To Be Carried Forward for Evaluation, and 3) the Preferred Alternative.

Elevation of Delays and Dispute Resolution – Directs agencies to use dispute resolution procedures within applicable laws and to defer to staff who have day-to-day project involvement. Where disputes are anticipated to delay a Permitting Milestone, disputes are to be elevated within the federal agencies.

Exceptions – Provides a number of exceptions to the MOU including the ability of lead agencies to extend the 90 day decision deadline.

© 2018 Bracewell LLP.

This post was written by Kevin A. Ewing, Jason B. Hutt and Christine G. Wyman of Bracewell LLP.