Tag: GHG regulations

New Climate Guidance Issued to Federal Agencies Conducting Environmental Impact Analyses

Overview

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

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

GHG Guidance

Quantifying a Proposed Action’s GHG Emissions

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

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

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

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

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

Identifying Reasonable Alternatives and Potential Mitigation Measures

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

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

Examples

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

Conclusion

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

FOOTNOTES

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

2. Id.

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

4. GHG Guidance at 1,201.

5. Id. at 1,202-03.

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

7. Id. at 1,205.

8. Id. at 1,204.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Id. at 1,206.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 1,202.

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

15. Id. at 1,208.

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

© 2023 Bracewell LLP

DC Appeals Court Upholds EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules

Timothy J. Lundgren of Varnum LLP recently had an article regarding EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rules, published in The National Law Review:
Varnum LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upheld the EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations against a challenge brought by business interests and the attorney generals of a number of states seeking relief from EPA’s new GHG regulations. As a result, EPA’s GHG regulations remain effective, and PSD and Title V permits must continue to include BACT limits on GHG emissions. Barring a reversal by the Supreme Court (which seems unlikely at this point) or action by Congress, the inexorable processes of the CAA will likely lead to further and more restrictive regulation of GHGs by EPA going forward.

The regulations grow out of an earlier case decided at the Supreme Court, in 2007,Massachusetts v. EPA, which determined that GHGs are an “air pollutant” for purposes of the Clean Air Act, and so are subject to regulation. Since that 2007 decision, the EPA has taken a number of steps related to GHG regulation, including issuing an Endangerment Finding (that GHGs may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”), setting emission standards for cars and light trucks (the “Tailpipe Rule”), and establishing construction and operating permits for major stationary sources of GHGs. These permits would require implementation of the best available control technology (“BACT”) to limit GHG emissions.

The various Petitioners raised numerous substantive and procedural challenges to EPA’s findings, including claims that the bases for EPA’s Endangerment Finding and Tailpipe Rule were improper, that the scientific record was inadequate or improperly addressed, and that the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) had not been met during the development of these regulations, among other claims. The court upheld EPA’s review of and reliance on the scientific record it had compiled, as well as its compliance with the APA. The court also rejected challenges to major source permitting requirements, largely based on the statutory language of the Clean Air Act. Given the court’s heavy reliance on the Clean Air Act and the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision, a reversal seems unlikely without some change in direction by the high court.

© 2012 Varnum LLP

USEPA Proposes to Retain Current GHG Thresholds in Step 3 of the Tailoring Rule

Recently an article by Energy and Public Utilities Group of Schiff Hardin LLP regarding the USEPA’s GHG Thresholds appeared in The National Law Review:

As the D.C. Court of Appeals heard an unprecedented two days of oral argument on challenges to USEPA’s suite of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) regulations, USEPA issued an advance copy of yet another GHG regulation-the third step of its GHG permit Tailoring Rule (“Proposed Step 3 Rule”). Advance copy of Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0517 available at www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgdocs/TRStep3_Proposal_FRN.pdf. Proposed Step 3 retains the current GHG permitting thresholds for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V Operating Permit Programs under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The proposal is consistent with USEPA’s phased-in approach to tailor the requirements of the CAA to apply to only the largest emitters. In so doing, USEPA recognizes that state agencies are not ready to handle a bigger permitting program.

In 2010, USEPA committed to complete action on a Step 3 rulemaking by July 1, 2012, and to make Step 3 effective on July 1, 2013. Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule were promulgated in May 2010, applying only to the largest sources of GHG emissions. In that rule, USEPA stated that it would take comment and consider whether to include smaller sources or lower the trigger for applicability in Step 3. In the Proposed Step 3 Rule, USEPA determined that “the permitting authorities are not significantly better positioned now” to process more GHG permits than they were in May 2010, so USEPA proposes to retain the current applicability thresholds promulgated under Steps 1 and 2.

The thresholds for determining GHG PSD applicability are as follows:

  • Step One:
    • Starting January 2, 2011, GHGs must be addressed in Title V permits for all sources that are otherwise subject to Title V permitting requirements based on their emissions of non-GHG pollutants.
    • In addition, PSD requirements apply to GHGs for projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons per year (“tpy”) carbon dioxide equivalent (“CO2e”), but only for projects that are “major modifications” as a result of an increase in emissions of a regulated, non-GHG pollutant.
  • Step Two:
    • Starting July 1, 2011, some stationary sources that would not otherwise require Title V or PSD permits require such permits solely as a result of emitting GHGs.
    • Stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e (and 100 tpy GHGs on a mass basis) are subject to Title V permitting requirements.
    • Stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e (and 100 or 250 tpy GHGs on a mass basis, depending on the source) constitute “major stationary sources” under the PSD regulations. New stationary sources over the 100,000 tpy CO2e threshold are subject to PSD requirements for their GHG emissions. In addition, projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e are “major modifications” (assuming other elements are met and no exclusions apply), whether or not those projects would constitute “major modifications” based on an increase of any other pollutant.

USEPA also proposed two changes to streamline the permitting program under Step 3.

The first is to extend the use of the plantwide applicability limit (“PAL”) to GHG permitting. The source would apply for a PAL that would apply to the entire source rather than specific emissions points. This alteration would allow facilities to alter emissions units without triggering new permitting requirements, provided that emissions levels do not exceed the PAL. The added flexibility allows companies to respond to changing market conditions while streamlining permitting.

The second change would create the regulatory authority for USEPA to issue synthetic minor permits for GHGs where the agency is the PSD permitting authority. Under this approach, a GHG source could agree to an enforceable GHG emissions limit set below a level that would trigger PSD permitting requirements. Such a limit might be an hourly or daily fuel consumption limit, for example. USEPA proposes to give itself and its designated agents the ability to issue synthetic minor permits for GHG and potential GHG emitters. USEPA stated that many state and local permitting authorities already have the ability to issue such synthetic minor permits.

The proposal solicits comments on whether streamlined approaches could be appropriate for some source categories and requests that commenters provide detailed proposals for those source categories. For example, general permits could be considered for some. USEPA solicits comments on which source categories would be candidates for the creation for a Potential to Emit (“PTE”) specific rule or guidance; input on whether such a rule should target specific source categories or be made broadly available; and comments on the appropriate structure and requirements for such a rule.

The proposal requests comment on a number of other PSD program concepts, including permitting burden on state agencies, presumptive BACT and “empty” Title V permits. The proposal has not yet been published in the Federal Register but USEPA states that the comment period for the Proposed Step 3 Rule will end on April 20, 2012. A public hearing will be held on March 20, 2012 in Arlington, Virginia.

This brief summary does not address the many permitting decision nuances and requested comments reflected in the agency action, so careful reading of the proposed rule is suggested. For more information about the Tailoring Rule, please see our prior updates: “USEPA Issues Final Tailoring Rule” and“Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Permitting Deadlines in 2011”.

© 2012 Schiff Hardin LLP