Tag: Environmental Law

Is Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Setting Its Sights on Hydraulic Fracturing Compounds?

Morgan Lewis logo

Agency implements rule requiring companies to disclose information regarding the use of certain industrial chemical substances commonly used in natural gas and oil well drilling.

On May 9, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Direct Final Rule[1] identifying 15 chemical substances[2] that will require notice prior to manufacturing, importing, or processing for an activity designated as a significant new use. These chemicals were flagged pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) significant new use rules (SNURs). The notices, referred to as Significant New Use Notices (SNUNs), must be submitted to EPA 90 days before a listed chemical is manufactured, imported, or processed for an activity designated as a significant new use. EPA states that this will provide the agency with an opportunity to evaluate the intended use and determine whether it is necessary under TSCA to prohibit or limit the activity before it occurs.

While chemicals in the rule include those that can be employed in a broad range of uses, of particular interest is the listing of one compound[3] used in natural gas and oil well drilling and hydraulic fracturing to eliminate bacteria in the water that produce corrosive by-products. EPA included this compound due to its potential toxicity to aquatic life at concentrations above 11 parts per billion (ppb). Pursuant to the Direct Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 721, Subpart E [Significant New Uses for Specific Chemical Substances] is expected to be amended to include section 721.10666, which would require reporting and associated recordkeeping obligations for the following significant new uses of this compound:

  • Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities other than as described in the original premanufacture notice (PMN) for this substance (PMN P-12-437)
  • Release to water resulting in surface water concentrations exceeding 11 ppb

EPA also recommended additional testing to help characterize the fate and environmental effects of the substance.

This is in line with EPA’s declared intent to use TSCA to require companies to disclose information regarding chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. However, it has been nearly two years since the agency, partly in response to a petition filed by Earthjustice, stated that it would propose rules to require certain reporting requirements for chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

Under TSCA, SNUNs must contain the following:

  • Common or trade name of the chemical substance
  • The chemical identity and molecular structure of the chemical substance
  • The categories or proposed categories of use
  • The total amount of each chemical substance manufactured or processed per category or use
  • A description of by-products resulting from the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of each such chemical substance or mixture
  • All existing data concerning the environmental and health effects of the substance
  • Estimates of the number of people exposed in their places of employment and the duration of such exposure
  • Changes in disposal methods
  • Any test data in the possession or control of the person giving the notice that is prescribed by EPA

Accordingly, while this rule does not implement a broad reporting requirement for hydraulic fracturing chemicals, it points to the likelihood of increased reporting for these substances. What is unclear, for the moment, is whether this new rule is a stopgap measure or a preview to a comprehensive proposal for TSCA reporting requirements for hydraulic fracturing chemicals.

The rule is effective on July 8, 2013, unless written “adverse or critical” comments on any of the SNURs, including potential alternatives and likely financial burdens, are received on or before June 10, 2013. Those chemical substance(s) and new use that receive comments or notice of intent to comment will be withdrawn before the effective date and a proposed SNUR for the specific chemical substance will be issued with a 30-day comment period. For purposes of judicial review, the rule is promulgated on May 23, 2013.

The rule highlights the need for firms using TSCA-listed chemicals for new and innovative technologies to bear in mind the PMN and SNUR implications for their applications. Additionally, the hydraulic fracturing industry should carefully watch for potential regulation of additional substances used in fracturing fluids.

[1]. View the Direct Final Rule here.

[2]. The chemical substances and associated PMNs subject to this Direct Final Rule are as follows:

  • Methylenebis[isocyanatobenzene], polymer with alkanedoic acid, alkylene glycols, alkoxylated alkanepolyol, and substituted trialkoxysilane (generic). PMN No. P-11-60.
  • Acetaldehyde, substituted-, reaction products with 2- butyne-1, 4-diol (generic). PMN No. P-11-204.
  • Functionalized multi-walled carbon nanotubes (generic). PMN No. P-12-44.
  • Alkenedioic acid dialkyl ester, reaction products with alkenoic acid alkyl esters and diamine (generic). PMN Nos. P-12-408, P-12-409, P-12-410, P-12-411, P-12-412, and P-12-413.
  • 2-Propenoic acid, (2- ethyl-2-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methyl ester. PMN No. P-12-414.
  • Quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(fattyalkyl) dimethyl, salts with tannins (generic). PMN No. P-12-437.
  • Slimes and sludges, aluminum and iron casting, wastewater treatment, and solid waste. PMN No. P-12-560.
  • Trisodium diethylene triaminepolycarboxylate (generic). PMN No. P-13-18
  • Tertiary amine alkyl ether (generic). PMN No. P-13-78.
  • Bromine, manufacture of, by-products from, distillation residues. PMN No. P-13-108.

A generic name was provided if the specific chemical substance named was claimed as confidential business information.

[3]. The “quaternary ammonium compounds, bis(fattyalkyl)dimethyl, salts with tannins (generic).”

Article By:

of

The Legal Challenge to the SEC’s Conflict Minerals Reporting Regulations

Dickinson Wright Logo

In the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, the United States Congress required, inter alia, the SEC to promulgate regulations requiring certain manufacturers to trace the sources of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold that are contained in products they manufacture or contract to manufacture to allow them to report yearly to the SEC whether the products are “not DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo] conflict free.” Conflict free was defined by Congress as meaning the products do not contain minerals that finance or benefit violent armed groups in the DRC or adjoining countries. Congress required the SEC action because “it [was] the sense of Congress” that the exploitation of conflict minerals from that region was financing armed groups that engaged in “extreme levels of violence” creating “an emergency humanitarian situation.”

Various industry groups lobbied heavily against the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act and later submitted comments during the SEC’s rulemaking challenging the proposed regulations’ due diligence and reporting obligations as unduly burdensome and costly. After considering the comments, the SEC, where it would not run afoul of the Congressional mandate, did reduce some of the burdens that would be imposed on industry. However, the SEC acknowledged that compliance with Congress’s intent precluded reduction of other burdensome aspects of the regulations. The SEC promulgated the regulations in August 2012.

In October, 2012, the National Association of Manufacturers, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, commenced a legal challenge to the conflict minerals regulations. Since then, voluminous briefs have been filed by NAM and the SEC along with briefs by numerous interested groups. These briefs outline the parameters of the dispute and suggest that NAM faces an uphill battle.

The crux of the industry’s challenge is that the SEC failed to properly quantify the benefits and costs associated with the regulations and thereby acted arbitrarily and capriciously in promulgating them. NAM claims the reporting requirements will not aid the DRC and could cripple the region economically. It also claims that the SEC failed to agree to certain revisions that would have lessened the burdens and costs on business, like carving out a de minimus exemption for manufacturers whose products used only trace amounts of conflict minerals and predicating a burdensome due diligence requirement on whether a manufacturer had “reason to believe” that their products contained conflict minerals that may have originated in the DRC as opposed to whether the products “did originate” there. NAM asks the court to strike the entire regulation and send the SEC back to square one.

The SEC responds that it was not its responsibility to quantify the benefits of the regulations, noting that Congress had made that calculation and had determined that the benefits justified the reporting requirement Congress mandated. In fact, the SEC admitted it could not quantify the benefits because it lacked data to do so. Rather it performed a qualitative analysis. It also defends its rejection of NAM’s proposed revisions that would have reduced the costs of compliance. The SEC noted, and various members of Congress agreed, that Congress had considered and rejected the de minimus exemption because it would defeat the purpose of the rule. Congress concluded that thousands or millions of trace amounts can add up to a significant amount, the trade in which would undercut the rule’s purpose of stopping the flow of money to armed insurgents in the region. The second NAM proposal was rejected because in the SEC’s view, it would encourage willful blindness by industry. That is, if a business encountered a red flag suggesting the sources of its minerals were not conflict-free, it would investigate no further, so as to avoid a determination that they did originate there.

An interesting issue concerns the regulation’s imposition of the reporting requirements not just on manufacturers but also to those who contract for the manufacture of goods. NAM believes that this extension of the reporting requirements is contrary to the express language of Dodd-Frank. It supports its position through application of rules of construction routinely used in interpreting statutes and its argument is logical. However, former and current members of Congress came to the SEC’s aid on this issue claiming in their brief that they intended to include those who contract for the manufacturer of goods, again to prevent exemptions that would significantly undercut what the regulations sought to achieve.

Oral arguments are scheduled for May 15, 2013. It will be very interesting to see how receptive the panel from the DC Circuit is to NAM’s arguments. Asking the court to scuttle the entire regulation, the parameters of which Congress as a matter of policy framed, makes NAM’s challenge all the more difficult.

Article By:

 of

Vapor Intrusion Regulation and Environmental Remediation

Beveridge Diamond Logo

EPA recently issued two draft guidance documents on vapor intrusion and will accept comments on them through May 24, 2013. If finalized in current form, these guidance documents would formalize and enhance EPA’s existing practice of prioritizing vapor intrusion as a central issue in environmental remediation and could result in increases in the expense and effort required from responsible parties to achieve compliance for cleanup of contaminated sites conducted under federal authorities such as CERCLA or RCRA. They could also be highly influential in clean-ups overseen by state regulators.

Lastly, while intended for use in the regulatory context, recommendations in these guidance documents may be used to establish a standard of care in litigation involving vapor intrusion (e.g., RCRA citizen suits or common law toxic tort litigation).

Vapor intrusion is the migration of hazardous vapor from contaminated soil or groundwater into an overlying building.  It is considered potentially harmful to human health, creates risks in real estate transactions and financing due to potentially diminished property values and environmental liability, increases exposure in toxic tort litigation, and, in the federal regulatory context, is considered a pathway of possible exposure that must be evaluated as part of the evaluation and selection of a site remediation plan.

The first of these two guidance documents was prepared by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and is a comprehensive set of technical and policy recommendations regarding indoor air contamination arising from subsurface-source vapor intrusion attributable to all classes of volatile, or vapor-forming, chemicals (VI Guidance).[1]  The VI Guidance modifies and expands draft guidance on vapor intrusion issued by the agency in 2002 (2002 Draft VI Guidance), which provided general direction for evaluating the potential for vapor intrusion pathways at cleanup sites but omitted any measures for delineation and mitigation of potential risks.[2]  In a 2009 report, EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) recommended that EPA update the 2002 Draft VI Guidance to reflect the numerous technical and policy advancements made since that time in both the public and private sectors.

The second guidance document was prepared by EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and is focused on investigations and assessments at petroleum contaminated sites where vapor intrusion by petroleum hydrocarbons may occur (Petroleum VI Guidance).[3]

VI Guidance

The VI Guidance presents a step-by-step vapor intrusion assessment plan, beginning with gathering and evaluating data for an initial conceptual site model, through collecting and evaluating additional data from various sources, and culminating in a risk assessment.  According to EPA, the VI Guidance addresses the recommendations made in the OIG’s 2009 report and takes into consideration more recent guidance developed by states and other technical working groups.  Some of the elements in this document may well trigger an increase in expense in addressing VI risks and lengthen the site evaluation process.

·        Superfund Five-Year Reviews: At Superfund sites that require five-year reviews,[4]EPA will gather data on vapor intrusion pathways and assess the sufficiency of the selected remedy for follow up in the five-year review report.  Therefore, according to the VI Guidance and related Directive 9200.2-84,[5] the five-year review process could result in the re-opening of established Superfund remedies to address vapor intrusion, “even if vapor intrusion was not addressed as part of the original remedial action.”[6]

·        Preemptive Mitigation/Early Action: EPA recommends consideration of engineered methods to reduce vapor in buildings (e.g., by installing a radon-type detection system or vapor barriers), even in the absence of all pertinent lines of evidence necessary to characterize the vapor intrusion pathway.  Any such measure would be an early effort to cut off exposure before completing investigations, but would not address the subsurface vapor source.  The agency’s rationale is that installation of engineered exposure controls in buildings is typically more cost-effective and less disruptive than conventional vapor intrusion investigations and subsurface characterization.  Once preemptive mitigation measures are installed, however, that may conclude only an initial step rather than complete remediation.  In the context of brownfields programs, treating preemptive mitigation now as only an interim solution may affect long term redevelopment plans.

·        Aggregate Noncancer Health Risk: Even when the exposure level for each contaminant at a site is below screening levels and it is assumed that each “acts independently (i.e., there are no synergistic or antagonistic toxicity interactions among the chemicals)”, the VI Guidance nevertheless proposes that a risk manager aggregate the individual noncancer health risks associated with each contaminant exposure to determine whether a response is warranted.  The aggregated risk is reflected in a “noncancer hazard quotient” that would ultimately drive the response.  This approach could be overly precautionary if the aggregated sum overstates the actual risks presented by the individual constituents.  Furthermore, the VI Guidance recommends use of multiple lines of evidence in calculating and evaluating these risks, a process that may prolong response decisions and negatively affect situations where quick resolution of VI issues is paramount (e.g., brownfield redevelopment projects).  On the other hand, evaluation of multiple lines of evidence may be more advantageous to the extent it provides for a more informed view of likely risk.

·        Background Levels: Time-integrated sampling of volatile chemicals (as opposed to short-duration, or “grab” sampling) at multiple locations in and around a site is, in EPA’s view, necessary to distinguish among potential sources of these chemicals (i.e., ambient sources, indoor sources, or vapor intrusion).  In the past, generic values of historic background concentrations have been used to characterize ambient or indoor source concentrations.  However, EPA now recommends against the use of these generic values, even those from peer-reviewed sources, and instead asserts that only site-specific data (e.g., sub-slab, indoor air, and ambient air sampling data) should be used.  This recommendation will likely lead to improved accuracy and better understanding of site conditions, while at the same time increasing the time and cost related to characterization efforts.

Petroleum VI Guidance

The 2009 OIG report expressed concern that EPA’s 2002 Draft VI Guidance did not address petroleum vapor intrusion at UST sites.  The proposed Petroleum VI Guidance seeks to address that concern for UST sites and RCRA-driven activities undertaken by private UST owners and operators.  In addition to the traditional chemicals found in petroleum products (such as benzene), the Petroleum VI Guidance would require consideration of vapor risks associated with gasoline additives (such as MTBE) and chemicals that develop from biodegradation of petroleum in soil and groundwater (such as methane).

As proposed, at least two parts of the Petroleum VI Guidance may, in comparison with past experience, result in increased response costs and delays for responsible parties.[7]  First, the Petroleum VI Guidance rejects the notion that a single sampling event is a sufficient basis to conclude that further vapor intrusion investigation is unnecessary because “periodic monitoring and sampling over more than one annual cycle is generally needed” to address fluctuations in groundwater levels and contaminant plumes over time.  Second, the Petroleum VI Guidance includes a number of recommendations that suggest EPA seeks to reduce reliance on models.  Specifically, when modeling requires the use of literature values due to the unavailability of site-specific data, EPA “recommends that an uncertainty analysis be conducted to provide error bounds on predictions of the computer model,” and that the results of any modeling exercise be verified with field data.

Considerations for Both Guidance Documents

In conclusion, both of these proposed guidance documents signal an increased focus on vapor intrusion within EPA.  As they are amended and finalized, there is a limited opportunity to comment on them to try to encourage a final guidance that is workable and effective for remediation of sites with vapor intrusion issues.  There may be ways to improve the guidance by clarifying where there is site-specific flexibility and where the guidance is overly prescriptive.

Notably, these guidance documents may help define the standard of care in the context of RCRA citizen suits or common law toxic tort litigation.  Clarifying key assumptions in the guidance may buffer some of that impact.

Even though these guidance documents are in draft form and will likely be subject to considerable comment, EPA regions and states can be expected to consult and employ them during what may be a long interval before they are finalized.  To the extent EPA or a state regulatory agency does so and an affected party disagrees with aspects of the guidance at issue, parties should be aware that the draft guidances are non-binding on their face.  The documents state that they do “not impose any requirements or obligations on the [EPA], the states, or the regulated community.”  Accordingly, parties should be free to suggest alternative, technically sound approaches to regulators.  Moreover, because these documents are solely drafts and have not been tested by external expertise that will be provided in public comment, reliance on them in their current state is arguably premature.

Given the potential long term impact on cleanup requirements, interested parties should evaluate the guidance and strongly consider submitting comments to EPA by May 24, 2013.  In light of the complex technical issues involved, interested parties may also wish to request that EPA extend the comment period.

[1] EPA OSWER, “Final Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion Pathway from Subsurface Sources to Indoor Air” (Apr. 11, 2013)

[2] EPA OSWER, “Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils” (Nov. 29, 2002).  This draft document was never finalized.

[3] EPA OUST, “Guidance for Addressing Petroleum Vapor Intrusion at Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites” (Apr. 9, 2013).

[4] Section 121 of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9621) requires that remedial actions that result in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site be re-evaluated every five years to ensure that the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment.

[5] “Assessing Protectiveness at Sites for Vapor Intrusion: Supplement to the ‘Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance’” (Nov. 14, 2012).

[6] In a related context, EPA officials have already acknowledged that later discovery of vapor intrusion at Superfund sites may trigger parties to litigate over whether site remedies provided for in consent decrees should be revisited under the reopener provisions in those decrees.  SeeInsideEPA, “EPA Official Says Vapor Intrusion May Drive Suits To Reopen Cleanup Pacts” (May 3, 2013), available at http://insideepa.com/201305032433234/EPA-Daily-News/Daily-News/epa-official-says-vapor-intrusion-may-drive-suits-to-reopen-cleanup-pacts/menu-id-95.html?s=mu. 

[7] These issues may also be relevant in scenarios involving vapor intrusion from sources other than those covered by the Petroleum VI Guidance.  However, because these points were emphasized in that guidance document, we highlight them here.

Article By:

of

Energy and Environment Update, February 19, 2012

Recently published in The National Law Review was an article by David J. Leiter and Sarah Litke of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. regarding a Compilation of Energy and Evironment Updates:

Energy and Climate Debate

President Obama on February 13 sent Congress a $3.8 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2013 that, after a week of hearings and analysis, is likely to continue fueling debates over spending and taxes through the end of the year. One of the most interesting highlights of the budget includes the president’s varied ways of encouraging clean energy and infrastructure spending this year as the country works to boost the economy and create jobs.

In line with his State of the Union call for an all of the above energy strategy, the president’s budget request calls for an elimination of $4 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and a shift in funding from decreasing military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan to infrastructure projects. Though numerous entire department budgets remain relatively static, clean energy, climate, and environment issues are important components and priorities of the request, which encourages developing new clean energy, advancing research and development funding for clean energy, and promoting advanced manufacturing and jobs.

On the tax front, the administration proposes extending the production tax credit for wind facilities and the investment tax credit for wind facility properties to properties placed in service in 2013; the budget would also provide an additional $5 billion for the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (48C). The request would expand the tax credit for plug-in electric vehicles and remove the cap on the number of vehicles per manufacturer that can receive the credit, while also proposing a new tax credit for medium and heavy duty vehicles.

The emphasis on clean energy funding in the Department of Energy’s overall $27.2 billion funding request is high. Last Monday, the president proposed spending $2.3 billion, a 29 percent increase, on renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the agency’s FY2013 budget. The request also includes increased support for advanced manufacturing (up 150 percent from $115.6 million to $290 million) and the department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy initiative, and at the same time, the agency is not seeking further loan authority or credit subsidies for its loan guarantee program.

President Obama proposed trimming the Environmental Protection Agency’s fiscal 2013 budget by $105 million, marking the third time the administration has sought to cut the agency’s funding to compensate for rising deficit. The request would give the agency $8.3 billion, a 1.2 decrease from the $8.4 billion Congress provided in its omnibus spending package last year. The largest cuts would come from the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds.

The FY2013 budget proposal for the Agriculture Department provides $6.1 billion in direct loans, for energy initiatives, through the Rural Utilities Service program. Up to $2 billion would be used to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel power plants, with the balance being used to support rural renewable energy generation, transmission, and distribution.

Though approval of any budget may need to wait until the lame duck session at the end of the year Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has told Senate appropriators to be ready with fiscal year 2013 bills soon, as he may have to fill floor time this summer with funding or Law of the Sea Treaty debates.

In addition to the budget, the other big piece of congressional action last week occurred February 17 when both houses voted to pass legislation extending a 2 percentage point cut in the employee side of the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012 and repealing billions of dollars in recent changes to corporate estimated tax payments. The House voted 293-132 to pass the bill (H.R. 3630), and the Senate followed soon thereafter to approve the measure on a 60-36 vote. The bill’s passage is particularly significant because lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were forced to accept that it would be politically impossible to find $93.2 billion in acceptable offsets to pay for the payroll tax portion of the bill before the March 1 expiration. The bill also extends federal unemployment insurance benefits and the doc fix, but does not include extensions of any other popular expired or expiring tax breaks, including the 1603 grants in lieu of tax credits program or the production tax credit.

In other news, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced last week that he would delay a vote on the $260 billion energy and transportation bill until after the Presidents’ Day recess. Part of the delay is in the need to find new offsets, as the payroll tax cut deal uses the reduction in pension benefits that was in the highway bill. Speaker Boehner also acknowledged that some members of his caucus have concerns with the plan, and with few Democrats likely to support the legislation, Republicans might not have had the votes. On the other hand, the House passed a plan, 237-187, February 16 to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and expand drilling offshore and in ANWR. Acting on one portion of the much larger transportation and infrastructure strategy, the House also approved amendments directing 80 percent of Clean Water Act citations over the BP oil spill to Gulf restoration efforts, approving a geothermal exploration project, and quickening environmental reviews for renewable energy projects on public lands. Despite roadblocks, including the introduction of many amendments, Senate Democrats vowed last week to finish work on their highway bill (the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, S. 1813) after they return from the Presidents’ Day recess.

Congress

Solyndra Subpoenas

After spending the last week threatening to subpoena senior White House officials as part of an investigation of loan guarantees for Solyndra, House Republicans cancelled a February 17 Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations vote to authorize the subpoenas. The group reached a deal to have some of the officials answer questions instead.

CES Forthcoming

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) will introduce legislation setting a national clean energy standard during the week of February 27. The senator is also likely to introduce at some point this session an industrial energy efficiency bill similar to legislation (S. 1639) that he has previously introduced.

Senators Send Energy Tax Letter

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John Kerry (D-MA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Tom Carper (D-DE) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jeffrey Zients February 10 encouraging them to advance tax policies that improve energy efficiency and support clean energy incentives. Specifically, the senators asked the administration to include a performance based residential energy efficiency tax credit, an extension of the new energy efficient homes tax credit, and the simplification of the energy efficient commercial building deduction in the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2013. The group also asked that the administration work with them to develop a set of policies that offers long-term support to the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors, are fiscally responsible, and maintain clean energy jobs in the US.

Inquiry Into Solyndra Aspects of Prologis Conditional Loan Guarantee

On February 17, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), head of the oversight subcommittee, are launching an inquiry into the conditional approval of Prologis Inc.’s $1.4 billion loan guarantee for its Project Amp which involved installing Solyndra solar panels, despite concerns of Solyndra’s viability.DOE then issued a statement defending the Prologis loan guarantee.

Legislation Introduced

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation (S. 2100) February 13 to suspend sales of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until certain conditions are met.

Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) introduced the Smart Energy Act (H.R. 4017) February 15 to spur innovations in energy efficiency technology by targeting the federal government’s energy usage and by providing more opportunities for private industry to use energy efficient technologies and systems.

The same day, Representative Ed Markey introduced three pieces of legislation (H.R. 4024, H.R. 4025, and H.R. 4026) to suspend approval of liquefied natural gas export terminals; allow the Secretary of Interior to accept bids on new oil and gas leases on Federal lands only from bidders certifying that all natural gas produced pursuant from such leases be offered for sale in the United States; and to reauthorize the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal years 2013 through 2016.

Administration

Chinese VP Visit

President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden met with Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping February 14 to discuss a wide range of issues the two countries share. Speaking at a lunch at the State Department, the vice president praised cooperation taking place between the two countries, but also added that it can only be “mutually beneficial if the game is fair,” listing areas of tension in the relationship including intellectual property rights, trade, Chinese currency manipulation, technology transfer, and an uneven competitive playing field.

Department of Agriculture

Ethanol Production

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee February 15 that domestic production of corn ethanol is fast approaching the 15 billion gallon annual gap set by the 2007 renewable fuel standard, but that achieving an even larger quota for non-corn-based advanced biofuels will require a concerted federal effort. He said that without significant progress on the advanced biofuels, it will be impossible to reach the 36 billion gallon total biofuel requirement by 2022. Secretary Vilsack also reiterated that the United States has the potential to produce more than a billion tons of biomass each year to be used for fuel, electricity generation, and other energy applications by mid-century without harming farm and forestry products, and a billion tons of biomass contains energy equal to 30 percent of current annual domestic petroleum consumption. The USDA is hoping to hasten advances in non-ethanol biofuels through programs such as the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, which funds studies on harvesting, transporting, and storing raw feedstock for later conversion to biofuels.

Crop Insurance Cuts Defended

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee February 15 for the first of several farm bill hearings this year. During the hearing, he defended proposed cuts to crop insurance, saying they were necessary to preserve nutrition funding. The committee will hold its next farm bill hearing February 28 to focus on conservation programs.

Ethanol Group Asks for Tax Provisions in Farm Bill

In a February 14 letter to Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairwoman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, the Advanced Ethanol Council asked that the farm bill for 2012 include an extension of both the Cellulosic Biofuels Producer Tax Credit and the Special Depreciation Allowance for Cellulosic Biofuel Plant Property. The letter was sent as the committee continues work on a farm bill and a hearing specifically on farm bill related energy issues.

Department of Commerce

Satellites Top Priority

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrator Jane Lubchenco said February 16 that satellites to monitor weather and climate are the highest administration funding priority for fiscal year 2013. About $1.8 billion of the agency’s $5 billion budget would be used for polar orbiting and geostationary weather satellite systems as well as satellite systems for measuring sea level and potentially damaging storms. A portion of the agency’s more than $500 million research and development budget would fund Arctic research on climate change projections as well as marine sensor technologies to monitor and address algal blooms and ocean acidification.

Department of Defense

Army Corps to Streamline Renewable Permitting Structure

On February 21, in a scheduled Federal Register notice, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will issue two new nationwide permits, NWP 51 and NWP 52, authorizing land- and water-based renewable energy projects while also reissuing 48 existing permits. The permits will reduce the number of renewable energy generation projects that need Section 404 individual permits, with NWP 51 covering all components of land-based generation and NWP 52 covering water-based hydrokinetic and wind projects.

Department of Energy

$6.5 Million for Tribal Energy

On February 16, Energy Secretary Steven Chu awarded $6.5 million to 19 tribal clean energy projects as part of the administration’s commitment to strengthening partnerships with Tribal Nations and supporting tribal energy development. The competitively selected projects will allow tribes to advance clean energy within their communities by assessing local energy resources, developing renewable energy projects, and deploying clean energy technologies while saving money and creating new jobs.

Water Heater Plant Opens

The Department of Energy applauded the opening of General Electric Appliance’s new revitalized manufacturing facility in Louisville, KY, February 15, that will produce its highly efficient new water heaters. The company moved the operation from China, where it had been producing a former version of the appliance, to the newly opened plant – the first to open in the Appliance Park in over 50 years. The plant revitalization was partially funded through a $24.8 million manufacturing tax credit.

Efficient Lighting Standards

The Department of Energy’s Commercial Building Energy Alliances announced February 15 new voluntary energy-saving specifications for lighting troffers – rectangular overhead fixtures used in commercial buildings – and parking lot and structure lighting. The specification provides minimum performance levels for LED and fluorescent troffers used in commercial buildings, delivering energy savings of 15 to 45 percent. It also sets an optional section on lighting controls, which can increase savings up to 75 percent.

$1.3 Million for Efficiency Training

The Energy Department and the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Partnership Program announced February 16 up to $1.3 million for training programs to provide commercial building professionals with critical skills needed to optimize building efficiency, reduce waste, and save money. The programs will help to reach the Better Buildings Initiative goal of improving energy efficiency nationwide in commercial and industrial buildings by 20% by 2020. Applications are due March 30.

Efficiency Data Centers Webcast

The Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program will present a live webcast March 1 titled Achieving Energy Efficient Data Centers with New ASHRAE Thermal Guidelines. The session will benefit professionals interested in operating data centers at wider environmental ranges and greater efficiencies to reduce energy, capital, and maintenance costs.

Department of Interior

Budget Request Defended

During a February 15 hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar defended the agency’s energy regulations and efforts to balance development of energy and water resources. The agency’s strategy would prepare for new rules on oil and gas drilling, less oil shale leasing, and ecosystem conservation plans.

Department of State

Short Lived Pollutants Coalition

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced February 16 that she would joint with Environmental Protection Administrator Lisa Jackson and ministers from Bangladesh, Canada, Mexico, Sweden, and Ghana to announce a coalition dedicated to reducing short-lived climate pollutants. These pollutants include methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and black carbon. Studies have shown that inexpensive controls on methane, HFCs and black carbon could cut half a degree Celsius from the projected global temperature increase by 2030 and avoid millions of deaths annually during the same time frame. The head of the United Nations Environmental Programme will serve as the secretariat for the coalition – and other nations will have the opportunity to join at the next meeting of UNEP on April 23 in Stockholm. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short Lived Climate Pollutants will have a first year budget of $5 million, and the U.S. has committed to contributing $12 million over the first two years of the effort. The coalition will seek to raise public awareness of short-lived climate pollutants and drive increased public and private mitigation efforts.

Environmental Protection Agency

E15 Progresses

Bringing it one step closer to legal domestic distribution, he Environmental Protection Agency announced February 17 that it had found that E15 caused no significant health effects. The agency approved the fuel for use in late model vehicles last year but has not yet completed final registration of the fuel as required under the Clean Air Act. The agency’s finding comes less than two weeks after the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee voted to require an additional 18 month study by the National Academy of Sciences before it could register the fuel blend for use in vehicles.

Comments to Backup Generating Engines Proposal

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal aimed at resolving a 2010 legal challenge brought by EnerNOC Inc. and EnergyConnect Inc. received numerous comments last week concluding that the plan to allow stationary engines generating electricity to quadruple their annual operations would increase air pollution and skew competition in electricity markets. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the agency would revise air toxics standards to allow reciprocating internal combustion engines to increase their demand response operations to 60 hours a year, up from 15 hours.

Mercury Standards

The Environmental Protection Agency published final mercury and air toxics standards for power plants February 16, and industry groups and states are expected to challenge the “appropriate and necessary” finding. Lawsuits must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by April 16. Three suits were filed against the agency of the first day, by the National Mining Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and White Stallion Energy Center. Additionally, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) filed a disapproval resolution nullifying the agency’s mercury rule on February 16.

Comments on Vehicle Emission Rules

In comments received to proposals from the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to set greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for model year 2017 through 2025, car manufacturers have expressed support for the rule, but expressed concern that they will not be able to sell the more expensive vehicles, and also suggested that the two agencies consider additional, periodic technical evaluations of the standards in addition to the planned midterm review. The final rules are expected in August.

Ethanol Exemption Arguments Heard

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments February 13 in lawsuits challenging an Environmental Protection Agency rule exempting some ethanol facilities from a requirement to demonstrate that they reduce lifecycle greenhouse gases. A coalition of meat industry groups argued that removing the exemption would force some plants to close, reducing the demand for corn used to feed livestock. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 only intended to exempt gas and biomass fired ethanol plants built between 2008 and 2009 from the 20 percent lifecycle standard for those two years, but the agency’s March 2010 rule implementing the renewable fuel standard made the exemption permanent.

Revised Recycling Rates

The Environmental Protection Agency revised last week its 2010 study of municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal, using a more consistent methodology that brought the recycling rate of PET containers up from 21 to 29.2 percent and increased the national recycling rate to 34.1 percent. According to the revised analysis, the recycling rate of selected consumer electronics also fell from 26.6 percent to 19.6 percent.

Superfund Budget Request

The Environmental Protection Agency’s fiscal year 2013 budget request included a proposed $33 million cut, down to $532 million, for the remedial superfund program. This cut would halt new cleanups, create a backlog of 35 new construction projects, and hamper EPA’s ability to reach its goal of completing 93,400 superfund remedial site assessments by 2015. EPA requested $1.176 billion, $38 million less than last year, for the entire superfund program, including administration, research and technology development.

Activists File Suit Against EPA on Particulate Rule

On February 14, the American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a five-year review of the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter in line with existing deadlines. The rule setsthe standard for fine particles, 2.5 microns in diameter and smaller, and this challenge follows a similar suit recently filed by a coalition of 11 states. The suit asks for an order compelling EPA to complete the required review no later than Oct. 15, 2012.

Briefing Seeks to Vacate CSAPR

On February 14, the San Miguel Electric Cooperative Inc., along with Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the Southeastern Legal Foundation Inc., and Putnam County, GA, filed a brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitto vacate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule on the grounds that the agency has done an insufficient evaluation of how various power plant emissions regulations will affect compliance options. The briefing argues that EPA did not address the effects of an unreliable electric grid on communities’ health and welfare.

Navistar to Appeal Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Ruling

On February 17, Navistar Inc., filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, appealed a federal court’s dismissal of Navistar’s suit seeking to compel the Environmental Protection Agency to recall certain heavy-duty diesel engines from model-year 2010.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Challenge to Plant Approval Dismissed

On February 17, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a petition by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League asking that the court review internal documents related to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to reinstate construction permits for the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 in Alabama. The court said it did not have the authority to review internal documents related to the NRC approving TVA’s request to reinstate the plants’ construction permits in March 2009. Based on current economic conditions and new EPA regulations, TVA decided to resume building the 1,260 MW Bellefonte Unit 1 at a cost of $4.9 billion and an estimated completion date sometime between 2018 and 2020.

States

NY Fracking Bills

The New York State Legislature is considering bills to limit fracking in natural gas drilling while the Department of Environmental Conservation prepares to issue final rules to control the practice. More than two dozen bills on fracking have been introduced in the current legislative session, including measures to ban or place a temporary moratorium on fracking, grant local governments authority to prohibit fracking, and permit fracking waste to be classified as hazardous.

CA Office Supports Cap and Trade

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office released a report February 9 supporting the design of the state’s economywide greenhouse gas emissions trading program while offering suggestions to improve the operation of the program. The report concluded that in designing the program, the California Air Resources Board made a reasonable effort to balance the policy tradeoffs inherent in programs involving emissions leakage, offset credits, enforcement, and market volatility and oversight, and recommended changes that would shift the liability for failed offset credits from users to producers of the offset projects and eliminate holding limits on allocations.

Cape Wind PPA

On February 15, as part of the proposed merger agreement between utility companies Northeast Utilities and NSTAR, the Massachusetts government is requiring the merged entity to enter into a 15-year contract to purchase 27.5% of the proposed Cape Wind’s electricity. The whole agreement must be approved by the Massachusetts and Connecticut governments, with decisions expected in April, and the merger’s Cape Wind provision is contingent on the project breaking ground by 2016. The 130-turbine project is expected to produce up to 468MW of energy once fully operational.

State Renewable Portfolio Standards Driving Industry

On February 15, panelists participating in a webinar hosted by the American Council on Renewable Energy concluded that state renewable portfolio standards were currently driving the renewable energy industry, but even that may be insufficient to ensure the industry’s survival in the next decades in the face of expiring tax provisions at the federal level and the loss of Treasury’s cash grant program.

International

EU ETS Aviation List Updated

The European Commission published an updated list February 11 of airlines and aviation companies subject to the European Union’s Emissions Trading System for greenhouse gases. The new list includes Norway and Iceland as program participants. On February 16, the Commission found that the revisions would be considered only if European Union member states indicate that they are likely to back the changes.

 UN Secretary General Urges Focus on Sustainability in Business

On February 14, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a speech at the opening of a three-day global summit of business leaders preparing for theRio+20conference in Brazil in June, asked that the world’s business community should do more to promote sustainability and to work with U.N. programs of that nature like the Global Compact corporate responsibility initiative. He also suggested that as many representatives of the business community as possible join the Corporate Sustainability Forum, to be held on the sidelines of Rio+20, exploring innovative public-private sustainability partnerships. 

EU Ship Fuel Standards

On February 16, the European Parliament’s environment committee voted 48–15 to follow the United State’s example and surpass International Maritime Organization standards by only permitting ships using fuel with very low levels of sulfur. Since January 2012, the IMO has restricted sulfur in marine fuel to 3.5%, with the limit scheduled to decrease to 0.1% for sensitive “sulfur emission control areas” (SECAs) in 2015 and to 0.5% for all areas in 2020. Under this proposal, the EU would pursue the same strategy as the US, which has surpassed the IMO regulations by designating most of the water within 200 miles of the national shoreline as SECA. The committee approved the draft legislation, proposed by the Commission in July 2011, and it will become final once the European Parliament, scheduled to vote on the measure in May, and the EU Council agree on the regulations.

Mexican Climate Initiatives

Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s administration, via a 2007 climate change strategy and 2009’s Special Climate Change Program, is working to meet its 2020 target for a 30% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from baseline projections. Mexico has minimum goals in place to cut 50 million metric tons annually in greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012. Mexico is also aiming to increase its renewable power capacity to 5,700MW by 2017.

Miscellaneous

CCS Making GHG Progress

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions released a study February 14 finding that projects that capture and store carbon dioxide emitted by coal-fired power plants and industrial processes are slowly making a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. The report, A Greenhouse Gas Accounting Framework for Carbon Capture and Storage Projects, concluded that the 15 large projects now either in operation or under construction around the world have the capacity to store more than 35 million tons of CO2 annually, and the center touted the report as the first comprehensive framework for calculating the degree to which such projects can actually reduce global emissions.

KPMG Report on Environmental Costs of Business

On February 14, KPMG released Expect the Unexpected: Building Business Value in a Changing World arguing that external environmental costs in 11 surveyed sectors rose from $566 billion in 2002 to $846 billion in 2010and those costs are doubling every 14 years. Climate change, water and energy scarcity, and volatile fuel prices will all drive up the cost of doing business while providing new business opportunities, according to the report.

Pacific Northwest Transportation & Climate Change Report

On February 3, the Region X Northwest Transportation Consortium released the report Climate Change Impact Assessment for Surface Transportation in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska evaluating potential impacts on Alaska and the Pacific Northwest’s transportation infrastructure from climate change, and suggesting possible adaption responses. The Consortium consists of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Idaho Transportation Department, Oregon DOT, and Washington state DOT, as well as the University of Alaska Transportation Center, National Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology, OTREC, and TransNow. The report analyzed 5 pilot projects sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration that explore infrastructure vulnerability and risk assessment as well as a case study designed to identify Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington’s critical road, rail, and airport infrastructure.

ACEEE Study of Ratepayer Funding

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy released a report called A National Survey of State Policies and Practices for the Evaluation of Ratepayer-Funded Energy Efficiency Programs analyzing the oversight of utilities’ ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs in 44 states and the District of Columbia. Utilities oversee 37% of the programs, utilities and the utility regulatory commission together monitor the programs in 36% of the states, and the government or a third-party are responsible in the remaining 27%. Independent contractors or consultants conduct evaluation studies in 79% of the states, with the remaining 21% using utility or government agency staff. Among the surveyed states, 45% have statutory requirements for the evaluation of programs, with the same number relying on orders from regulatory commissions, and 10% have no formal policy requirement. The report also shows a range of 6 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour for adding new electricity supply, but only a 1.6 to 3.3 cent per kilowatt-hour cost range for efficiency improvements. Per capita, Vermont and Massachusetts spend the most on energy efficiency at $58 per capita, whereas California spends $40, Connecticut $39, and Minnesota $38. The report called for evaluation and reporting guidelines and greater transparency, while stopping short of recommending a national standard given concerns about implementation, among other things.

University of Texas Fracking Study

On February 16, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin released a study finding that hydraulic fracturing has no direct connection to groundwater contamination and that many reports claiming fracking-related contamination involve the mishandling of fracking wastewater or above-ground spills. The Energy Institute had assistance from the Environmental Defense Fund in developing the study’s scope of work and methodology, but the study did not examine Environmental Protection Agency data related to a natural gas field in Pavillion, WY whose fracking activities the agency says is responsible for groundwater contamination.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

CEQ Issues Draft Guidance to Promote Efficient NEPA Environmental Reviews

Recently posted in the National Law Review  an article by attorney Melissa C. Meirink of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding the draft guideance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ):

GT Law

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently issued draft guidance designed to promote more efficient environmental reviews of projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before deciding to adopt a proposal or to take action. NEPA is triggered when there is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Although the current NEPA-implementing regulations provide methods for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews, the CEQ’s proposed guidance will emphasize and clarify those methods. Specifically, the guidance outlines the following principles for agencies to follow when conducting a NEPA review:

  • NEPA encourages simple, straightforward, and concise reviews
  • The NEPA process should begin early and should be integrated into project planning
  • NEPA reviews should adopt, use, and incorporate existing documents and studies
  • Targeted scoping can assist to focus environmental reviews on appropriate issues
  • Agencies should develop expeditious timelines for environmental reviews
  • Agencies should respond to comments in proportion to the scope and scale of the environmental issues raised

In addition, the draft guidance clarifies that many provisions of the existing regulations referring to an environmental impact statement (EIS) can also apply to an environmental assessment (EA).  The draft guidance also provides measures to eliminate duplication of efforts and to promote better interagency interaction.

The draft guidance would promote a clear and more streamlined environmental review process under NEPA that would benefit agencies, project proponents, and others interested in the NEPA process.  The CEQ is accepting public comment on the draft guidance until January 27, 2012. 

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

EPA Proposes Changes to Underground Storage Tank Regulations

Posted in the National Law Review an article by attorneys Julie A. Fournier, Michael J. Hughes and Lisa S. Zebovitz of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP about the EPA’s porposed changes to the underground storage tanks:

 

For the first time since federal regulations regarding underground storage tanks (USTs) were first promulgated in 1988, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing significant changes and additions to these regulations. The proposed rulemaking, found at 76 FR 71708, includes new requirements for USTs primarily focusing on proper operation and maintenance and spill prevention. EPA asserts that the revisions will improve the detection and prevention of UST releases leading to increased protection of human health and the environment.

Newly added requirements include secondary containment for new and replaced USTs, operator training programs, and periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems, such as monthly inspections of spill prevention and release detection equipment, yearly testing of spill prevention equipment, and the testing of overfill prevention and certain secondary containment equipment every three years. In addition, deferrals for certain types of tanks will be eliminated. These requirements are intended to reflect significant technological advances made in the last two decades.

The proposed changes may be significant to the commercial and manufacturing sectors if they become effective. From a practical standpoint, owners and operators of tanks in the vast majority of states with approved UST programs may ultimately see changes in state regulations. States currently operating under an approved UST program will have three years to submit a revised program approval package to conform to the new regulations. Therefore, if the proposed regulations become effective, owners and operators of USTs should monitor changes to state programs closely. Owners and operators located in one of the few remaining states that do not have an approved UST program may be required under the new regulations to notify EPA when bringing a UST system into use or following a change in ownership.

Documents related to the proposed changes identified above, including a comparison of the current and proposed regulations and a Regulatory Impact Analysis, are available on EPA’s Web site. Comments to the proposed rule must be received by EPA on or before Feb. 16, 2012.

© 2011 Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP.

U.S. Department of State to Delay Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline in Order to Assess Different Pathway Through Nebraska

Recently published in the National Law Review an article by attorney Ivan T. Sumner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding an update on the Keystone XL oil pipeline:  

 

GT Law

 

 

On November 10, 2011, the U.S. State Department announced during a press briefing that it was delaying its decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline in order to assess other pathways through Nebraska. The 1700 mile crude oil pipeline which would run from the Alberta Oil Sands region in Canada and ultimately terminate at refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast would also traverse over the shallow water Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska’s Sand Hills region.

While the State Department released the final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed oil pipeline on August 26, 2011, since that time opposition to the proposed route has expanded including Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R) due to the proposed route over the Ogallala aquifer. The Nebraska Governor had already called a special session of the Nebraska legislature for the crafting of pipeline siting/approval legislation that will be further vetted during the week of November 14th. The State Department is now to be looking at alternative routes of the Keystone pipeline that would avoid or minimize impacts to the Nebraska Sand Hills region. The alternative pipeline route review will be conducted as a supplemental environmental impact statement and the State Department’s final decision on the proposed pipeline is estimated to conclude sometime following the 2012 presidential election.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

The Truth about Clean Energy Jobs

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by U.S. Department of Energy in response to The Washington Post’s assertions  about the Department of Energy’s loan programs:

The Washington Post’s assertions today about the Department of Energy’s loan programs are both incomplete and inaccurate.

Here are the facts: over the past two years, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program has supported a robust, diverse portfolio of more than 40 projects that are investing in pioneering companies as we work to regain American leadership in the global race for clean energy jobs. These projects include major advances for our renewable power industry including the world’s largest wind farm, several of the world’s largest solar generation facilities, and one of the country’s first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. Collectively, the projects plan to employ more than 60,000 Americans, create tens of thousands more indirect jobs, provide clean electricity to power three million homes, and save more than 300 million gallons of gasoline a year, all while investing in American competitiveness. What matters to the men and women who have those jobs is that the investments that this Administration is making are helping to keep factories open and running.

When the Washington Post claims that the program has created 3,500 jobs, here is what the reporters are excluding:

  • 33,000 American auto jobs saved at Ford. The Post article does acknowledge that the program enabled Ford to modernize its factories to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, which a Ford spokeswoman credits for “helping retain the 33,000 jobs by ensuring our employees can build the fuel-efficient cars people want to drive.”
  • More than 7,300 construction jobs. Many of the projects funded by the program are wind and solar power plants, which create significant numbers of construction jobs but once built can be operated inexpensively without a large workforce. But the Washington Post chose to ignore all of those jobs. If a community built a new highway or a bridge that employed 200 workers directly during construction – and many more in the supply chain — and that also strengthened the local economy by making it faster to transport goods, would anyone say that the project created zero jobs?
  • Supply chain jobs. While these jobs aren’t reflected in official government estimates because of the difficulty in obtaining a precisely accurate count, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. When a company spends $100 million or $200 million building a wind farm or a solar power plant, most of that economic value actually goes into the supply chain – creating huge manufacturing opportunities for the United States.

In fact, when you look at the Washington Post’s graphic, you can see that the program has already created or saved roughly 44,000 jobs.  Many of the projects it has funded are just getting going, and many of the loans won’t even go out the door until the next few weeks. Others have not ramped fully up to scale. But we are on pace to achieve more than 60,000 direct jobs – and many more in the supply chain.

Here’s a simple example:

Last year, the Department awarded a loan guarantee to build the Kahuku wind farm in Hawaii. It employed 200 workers during construction. Those wind turbines were built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The project also features a state of the art energy storage system supplied by a company in Texas. The supply chain reached 104 U.S. businesses in 21 states. But by the Washington Post’s count, none of those jobs – not even the 200 direct construction jobs – should count.

What’s critically important and completely ignored by the Washington Post, is that the value of this program can’t be measured in operating jobs alone. The investments are helping to build a new clean energy industry here in America. We are now on pace to double renewable energy generation from wind and solar from the time the President took office. Yet we are still in danger of falling behind China and other nations that are competing aggressively for leadership in these technologies. This is a race we can and will win, but only if we make these investments today. These investments will pay dividends not just in today’s jobs but in entire industries and supply chains – and in cleaner air and water for our children and grandchildren.

One of the goals of the program is to create projects that will encourage the private sector to take the financing risk on other, similar projects on its own. If we can show, for example, that a commercial scale cellulosic biofuel plant in Iowa can succeed, the private sector will likely finance many more of them around the country.

America’s economic strength has been built on technological leadership. The next great technological revolution is the clean energy revolution, and this Administration is committed to making sure that America will continue to lead the world.

Department of Energy – © Copyright 2011

Asbestos Litigation Case Questions Safety in the Workplace

Recently posted in the National Law Review on  an article by C. James Zeszutek and David J. Singley of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding an unsual case  in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred:

Although most would consider asbestos to be an old problem, limited to mainly the manufacturing and construction industries, asbestos has been incorporated into a myriad of products that had many and varied uses. Because asbestos was so pervasive, claims such as the one described below, occurring many years after the last occasions on which asbestos was used and arising from the use of sophisticated equipment in a laboratory, are still prevalent.

Dinsmore attorneys recently handled a premises liability case for a major minerals supply company. The case was unusual in that the plaintiff worked as a technician servicing laboratory equipment and the alleged asbestos exposures occurred into the 1990’s. This is in contrast to the typical asbestos case that usually involves exposure in heavy industry prior to 1980.

The plaintiff in this case initially worked as a technician for a manufacturer of laboratory instruments including thermoanalyzers. A thermoanalyzer is an instrument that allows the user to determine the amount of water in the sample being tested as well as certain other characteristics of the sample as the result of heating the sample to high temperatures. The thermoanalyzer at our client’s premises contained an asbestos paper separator between the “hot” portion of the instrument and the unheated side. The plaintiff testified that whenever he installed or performed service work on the thermoanalyzers, including the one at our client’s laboratory, he was exposed to friable asbestos from the paper separator as well as component insulation on vapor lines contained in the thermoanalyser. The plaintiff also contended that he was exposed to friable asbestos from an asbestos glove and asbestos pad that were provided with the thermoanalyzer. The plaintiff ultimately left his employment with the thermoanalyzer’s manufacturer and started his own business doing the same type of work, namely servicing various laboratory instruments, including thermoanalyzers. Significantly, the plaintiff alleged exposures at our client’s premises into the 1990’s. The plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer which is uniformly fatal and is, except in rare circumstances, a signature disease for asbestos exposure.

The plaintiff’s theory of liability as to our client was that because the thermoanlayzer in our client’s laboratory had asbestos in it, and further because the client had not provided a warning to the plaintiff regarding asbestos in the thermoanalyzers, that our client had breached its obligation to provide a safe workplace for tradesmen at its premises. As is typical in asbestos cases, it was not initially clear what theory of liability the plaintiff was pursuing. It was not until the plaintiff was deposed and additional discovery undertaken that it became apparent that the plaintiff was focusing on the alleged failure to provide a safe work place because of the asbestos containing components in the thermoanalyzer. The case was further complicated because it was filed in New Jersey, where the plaintiff lived, but our client’s premises were located in Pennsylvania. Thus, there was a question as to whether New Jersey or Pennsylvania law would apply. We argued that regardless of which state’s law was applied, as the premises owner, our client did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, an independent contractor, who was allegedly injured by the very piece of equipment on which he was hired to work.

The Plaintiff argued that the Olivo v. Owens – Illinois case, a New Jersey Supreme Court Case, required a premises owner to provide a reasonably safe place to work for tradesmen coming on to the owner’s premises, including an obligation to inspect for defective or dangerous conditions. The Olivo case was one in a series of cases in which the New Jersey courts were attempting to address premises liability in terms of a reasonableness standard as opposed to the traditional categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee, all of which deal with the person’s status while on the premises. In Olivo, the New Jersey trial court granted summary judgment. The New Jersey appellate court reversed and held there were issues of fact regarding the degree of control the premises owner retained over the work, what safety information the premises owner provided, and what the premises owner told the contractor regarding the presence of asbestos on the premises. The Plaintiff argued that these were exactly the same issues in our case.

Dinsmore argued that Pennsylvania law applied (because the premises in question was in Pennsylvania) and in any event, Pennsylvania law was similar to that of New Jersey, namely, that a premises owner does not owe a duty of care to an independent contractor for dangers inherent in the work the independent contractor was hired to perform. Although the court did not overtly address the choice of law issue, it held that our client, the premises owner, did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff because the plaintiff was responsible for his safety on the equipment on which he was working. In granting our motion for summary judgment, the court focused on the premises owner’s lack of any supervision or control over the worked performed by the independent contractor. We also emphasized the independent contractor’s superior knowledge regarding the thermoanalyzer and its components.

Our Advice 

Facilities and equipment managers need to be alert that in facilities built or remodeled prior to the mid-1970’s, or equipment, even laboratory equipment, assembled prior to 1980 and where there was a need for thermal insulation, asbestos may still be present and care should be used in dealing with such equipment. Additionally, although waivers of liability, obtained from the tradesmen coming on the property may provide some legal protection, the facilities and equipment managers should make clear with the tradesmen, or the tradesmen’s employers, that they are being hired for their expertise and knowledge regarding the proposed work and that they are being relied upon to perform the work in a safe manner.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

 

What To Expect From a President Perry on the Environment? Some Texas-Sized Clues

Posted on August 19, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by Jim Morris and Evan Bush of Center for Public Integrity regarding  Texas Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry’s environmental stance: 

From climate change denial to stances against EPA and Supreme Court, candidate resists feds, aids businesses and helped a billionaire donor

What would President Rick Perry’s environmental agenda look like?

As Texas governor, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry often relied on Bryan Shaw, chairman of the state’s environmental regulatory agency, second from right. Harry Cabluck / Associated Press

For clues, one need only examine Perry’s record as governor of Texas, where the chairman of the state environmental agency writes vitriolic letters to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and questions the science behind climate change.

Bryan Shaw , a 2007 Perry appointee to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who became the agency’s chairman in 2009, opined in a guest column in the El Paso Times last month that a new EPA rule designed to reduce cross-state air pollution from coal-fired power plants was in fact “aimed at cutting Texas jobs, cutting Texas economic growth, increasing Texas energy costs, and harming Texas energy security.”

The column closely followed a statement by Perry himself, who called the rule “another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington, D.C.”

Perry’s gubernatorial campaign received more than $5 million in contributions from energy companies and their employees during the 2009-2010 election cycle, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan National Institute on Money in State Politics . Among Perry’s largest contributors during the cycle: Houston oilmen Jeffrey Hildebrand and Gary Petersen , and Valero Energy Corp . Oil and gas companies consistently are among the state’s biggest polluters.

Perry recently told the Christian Broadcast Network that he prays for President Obama every day, asking in particular that “his EPA back down these regulations that are causing businesses to hesitate to spend money.”

Shaw, in June 30 testimony before the a Senate clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee, attacked another EPA rule meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic compounds from coal- and oil-fired power plants. Shaw maintained, among other things, that “any health benefits [from the rule] would be insubstantial compared to the cost of regulation” and expressed concern that “the reliability of the Texas electrical power system will be severely compromised.”

And in a testy letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Regional Administrator Al Armendariz a year ago, Shaw and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said they would defy EPA regulations – stemming from a 2006  U.S. Supreme Court decision , Massachusetts v. EPA – requiring Texas to begin issuing permits for greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources.

Shaw declined Wednesday, through a spokeswoman at the agency he chairs, to be interviewed byiWatch News . Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman in the governor’s office, said “the governor is proud of [Shaw’s] leadership and expects he will put Texas’s interests at the top of his decision-making.”

Frazier said that Perry, like Shaw, finds the science linking human activities to climate change to be “very questionable.” The EPA, she said, “continues to impose burdensome, job-killing mandates on Texas and the governor believes there needs to be a balanced approach to protecting jobs and protecting the environment. Texas has created a model for how to accomplish that goal.”

Environmental activists in Texas say they grew worried about Shaw when he disclosed during his 2009 confirmation hearing that he didn’t believe the science on climate change was “fully settled.”

“He denies the science no matter what it is – climate change, ozone, mercury,” Jim Marston, director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Texas office, said of Shaw. “All the other scientists around the world are wrong. Somehow, the laws of physics and chemistry don’t apply in Texas, apparently.”

“Adhering to the party line is [Shaw’s] guiding compass,” said Matthew Tejada, executive director of Air Alliance Houston , an environmental group that closely follows the commission Shaw chairs. “Every decision, policy, program or position that the TCEQ takes at the commission level is being guided by that compass – what can it do to strike back at an imaginary federal foe and what can it do to coddle industry here in the state.”

Shaw is a former associate professor in Texas A&M University’s Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department. His views on global warming contrast sharply with some of his former A&M colleagues – notably, the entire Department of Atmospheric Sciences, which declared in a statement several years ago that it is “very likely that humans are responsible for the recent warming.”

Loathsome though it may be to environmentalists, Shaw’s and Perry’s anti-EPA posture sits well with at least some members of the Texas business community.

“I think our political leaders in the state have done an excellent job protecting the environment while allowing the state’s economy to flourish in the past 10 years,” said Alex Mills, president of theTexas Alliance of Energy Producers. The EPA, under Obama, has “gone wacko,” Mills said, adding that a Perry administration would feature a “much more hands-off approach” to environmental regulation.

What some critics find most worrisome is Perry’s apparent willingness to reward major donors.

In 2009, the TCEQ approved a low-level radioactive waste dump for Andrews County in West Texas. The dump, expected to open next year, will accept waste from Texas and other states and be operated by Waste Control Specialists, owned by Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons.

Records show that Simmons and his wife have donated roughly $1.2 million to Perry’s campaigns since 1998, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. In 2004, Simmons helped finance the “Swift Boat” ads attacking the military record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Karen Hadden, executive director of the Austin-based Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition , fought licensing of the dump, saying radioactive leakage threatens groundwater and could lead to serious transportation accidents. The term “low-level” is a misnomer, Hadden said; in fact, the dump will take everything but uranium fuel rods from nuclear power plants and plutonium components of nuclear bombs.

An eight-member TCEQ team unanimously advised against licensing the facility in 2007 but was overruled by top-level managers (not including Shaw). Three members of the team, including Glenn Lewis, left the agency in protest.

“We came to the conclusion that it was an unsuitable site geologically because of the immediate vicinity of groundwater,” Lewis told iWatch News . Nonetheless, he said, “We were immediately instructed to begin drafting a license” for Waste Control Specialists.

Asked if he believed Simmons’s relationship with Perry was behind the order, Lewis said, “I’m 99 to 100 percent sure. From the first day I reported for duty on this team, the other members were quite resigned to the fact that if Simmons is behind this, he’s going to get his license.”

The company and the candidate deny any favorable treatment.

“I think the record’s pretty clear there is absolutely no evidence of special treatment of any kind,” said Chuck McDonald, a Waste Control Specialists spokesman. “The licensing process was a long and arduous one. It took five years.”

Frazier, Perry’s spokeswoman, said the Andrews County dump “is supported by that community. It’s a project that will create jobs and bring them economic development opportunities.”

Questions also were raised about a 2005 Perry executive order expediting the state permitting process for coal-fired power plants. At the time, a Dallas-based utility and major Perry contributor, TXU, wanted to build 11 such plants; plans for eight of the 11 were scrapped in 2007 after TXU was acquired by two private equity groups.

In 2008, The Center for Public Integrity and Fort Worth Weekly reported that TXU’s coal plants exceeded federal emission limits nearly 650 times between 1997 and 2006, putting more than 1.3 million pounds of lung-damaging sulfur dioxide into the air.

A growing body of science suggests greenhouse gases produced by human activities – chiefly deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels – are responsible for shifting temperatures and other changes in climate across the globe that could threaten people and wildlife and exacerbate international frictions over scarce resources.

Reprinted by Permission © 2011, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.