Tag: Regulatory

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

Ninth Circuit Finds Grocers’ Revenue-Sharing Agreement Must Go Through Full Rule of Reason Check-Out

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by attorney  Scott Martin of Greenberg Traurig, LLP regarding Sitting en banc and affirming a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held:

Sitting en banc and affirming a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held in California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc.,[1]that an agreement among four large competing Southern California supermarket (“chains”) to share revenues during a labor dispute was neither protected from antitrust scrutiny under the non-statutory labor exemption nor so inherently anticompetitive as to be condemned per se or evaluated under a truncated “quick look” test. Rather, the agreement — which reimbursed to a chain targeted by a strike an estimation of the incremental profits, for a limited period of time, on sales that flowed to the other chains in the arrangement as a consequence of the strike — was subject to traditional rule of reason analysis, balancing any legitimate justifications against any substantial anticompetitive impacts.

Dissenting in part, Chief Judge Kozinski (joined by Judges Tallman and Rawlinson) stated that the majority’s “groundbreaking” ruling on the inapplicability of the non-statutory labor exemption was “very likely an advisory opinion,” and had “no basis in the record, common sense or precedent.”

The case arose from circumstances surrounding 2003 labor negotiations between local chapters of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union and three of the supermarket chains that, with the union’s consent near the expiration of the labor contract, formed a multi-employer bargaining unit to negotiate. Along with the fourth chain (which also had a labor agreement that expired within months), the supermarket chains entered into a Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement (MSAA). The MSAA provided that if one of the chains was targeted for a selective strike or picketing (a so-called “whipsaw” tactic by which unions increase pressure on one employer within a bargaining unit), the other chains[2] would lock out all of their employees within 48 hours. As part of the MSAA, the chains also entered into a revenue-sharing provision (RSP), under which any of them that earned revenues during a strike or lockout above their historical shares relative to the other chains would pay 15 percent of those excess revenues to the other chains in order to restore their pre-strike shares.[3]

After negotiations with the UFCW broke down, a strike ensued. Picketing was focused on only two of the chains in the bargaining unit, and lasted for approximately four-and-a-half months. The two picketed chains ultimately were reimbursed under the RSP to the tune of approximately $146 million.

While the strike was underway, the State of California filed suit, claiming that the RSP was an unlawful restraint of trade under Section One of the Sherman Act.The grocers sought summary judgment on the ground that the RSP was immune from Sherman Act scrutiny pursuant to the non-statutory labor exemption, which shield certain restraints from Sherman Act challenge in order to allow for meaningful collective bargaining. The State also sought summary judgment on the grounds that the provision was unlawful per se, or should have been analyzed under an abbreviated (“quick look”) analysis. The district court denied both motions, and the parties pursued a streamlined appeal, after agreeing to a stipulated final judgment for defendants under which the State would not pursue the theory that the RSP was unlawful under a full rule of reason analysis, and the grocers would not pursue their affirmative defenses other than the non-statutory labor exemption.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the original panel (in an opinion by Judge Reinhardt, who dissented in part[4]from the later en banc opinion that requires a full rule of reason analysis) considered the history of profit-sharing arrangements and the circumstances and details of the chains’ arrangement, applying a “quick look” analysis of sorts, and concluded that the RSP was likely to have an anticompetitive effect. The Ninth Circuit panel rejected the application of the non-statutory labor exemption, and also found that “driving down compensation to workers” as a consequence of the agreement did not constitute “a benefit to consumers cognizable under our laws as a ‘pro-competitive’ benefit.”[5]The Circuit then agreed to hear the case en banc.

In the en banc decision, the majority declared that “novel circumstances and uncertain economic effects” of the RSP required “open discovery and fair consideration of all factors relevant under the traditional rule of reason test,” thus approving the district court’s original determination of the proper standard. The Ninth Circuit majority acknowledged that application of the full test was “not a simple matter,” but concluded that “[g]iven the limited judicial experience with revenue sharing for several months pending a labor dispute, [it could not be said] that the restraint’s anticompetitive effects are ‘obvious’ under a per se or quick look approach.” The court distinguished the RSP from other profit-pooling arrangements subject to stricter scrutiny on the grounds that, by its terms, the RSP (i) was effective only for a limited and unknown duration, thus arguably preserving incentives to compete during the revenue-sharing period; and (ii) did not include all participants in the relevant markets, leaving other competitors in the market who could discipline pricing.

However, the majority then opined that the RSP was not entitled to protection from antitrust analysis under the non-statutory labor exemption. In so doing, the court distinguished the supermarket chains’ RSP from the agreement among a group of NFL teams to unilaterally impose terms and conditions from a lapsed collective bargaining agreement that was considered in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (1996) (holding that the non-statutory labor exemption may extend to an agreement solely among employers). The Ninth Circuit majority determined that revenue-sharing is not an accepted practice in labor negotiations with a history of regulation; does not play a significant role in collective bargaining; is not necessary to permit meaningful collective bargaining; does not relate to the “core subject matter of bargaining” (wages, hours and working conditions); and restricts a business or “product” market, not a labor market.

Because the State of California had stipulated to a dismissal in the event that it did not prevail on a categorical basis under a per se or quick look analysis (which it did not), Chief Judge Kozinski wrote in dissent that the majority had in effect written an impermissible advisory opinion, and had gone “out of its way to rule on thenon-statutory labor exemption.” Chief Judge Kozinski went even further, however, In his view, “all of the relevant Brown factors weigh heavily in favor of exempting the RSP from antitrust review.” This was not a case of employers using a labor dispute as a pretext for price-fixing, but rather one of employers responding to union strike tactics, and then only to the degree that the tactics were effectively deployed. According to Chief Judge Kozinski, adding to strikes “the additional threat of antitrust liability — with its protracted litigation, unpredictable rule of reason analysis and treble damages — will no doubt force employers to think twice before entering into a revenue-sharing agreement in the future” and, contrary to precedent and policy, force employers “to choose their collective-bargaining responses in light of what they predict or fear antitrust courts, not labor law administrators, will eventually decide.”[6]

With the Ninth Circuit having effectively elevated the antitrust laws over the labor laws, one might postulate a fair chance of a petition for certiorari being accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court in this case implicating significant questions of both law and public policy. Unfortunately, in light of the stipulated dismissal, such review may have to wait, as the grocery chains may lack standing, let alone incentive, to seek it here.

[1]Nos. 08-55671, 08-55708 (9th Cir. July 12, 2011).

[2]The fourth chain, which was not in the original multi-employer bargaining unit, was not required by the MSAA to engage in the lockout.

[3]The RSP would be in effect until two weeks following the end of a strike or lockout, and it required the chains to submit weekly sales data for an eight-week period prior to the strike or lockout to a third-party accountant.

[4]Judges Schroeder and Graber joined in Judge Reihardt’s partial dissent.

[5]California ex rel. Brown v. Safeway, Inc., 615 F.3d 1171, 1192 (9th Cir. 2010).

[6]Quoting Brown, 518 U.S. at 247.

©2011 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

 

Coming Home: Service Members Bring Value, Benefits to Workplace

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Drew B. Millar of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding a significant number of returning servicemen and women are out of work:

Among the millions of Americans who are out of work are a significant number of returning servicemen and women. Many employers are distracted by the host of employment issues that can arise in employing these individuals and, to some extent, their families. Among the applicable laws are the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

While an understanding of the rights afforded to servicemembers by these statutes is essential, employing these individuals provides much more than a sense of patriotism for employers. Specific tax incentives exist (and more have been proposed) to get these individuals back to work. Many possess unique skills and abilities that would be an asset to any workforce. This article provides simple guidance about the laws that employers need to be aware of that impact the hiring of veterans and provide incentives for doing so.

USERRA mandates that employees be given a leave of absence to serve in the uniformed services and prohibits discrimination against employees because of their service. USERRA applies to all public and private employers regardless of size. This leave of absence can be as long as five (5) years and there are specific pronouncements on how the leave can be treated and what benefits the employee is entitled to while on qualifying leave. After the employee’s period of service has ended, the employer has an obligation to re-employ the individual in the same or similar position depending on the length of the leave period.

The FMLA also has a leave provision specifically designed to protect injured servicemembers and their families. While employees must have worked at least 1,250 hours during the preceding twelve-month period, under USERRA, an employee returning from fulfilling his or her National Guard or Reserve Military obligation shall be credited with the hours of service that he or she would have performed (based on pre-service work schedule) but for the period of military service to meet this requirement.

Military Caregiver leave or Covered Servicemember leave permits a “spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin” to take up to 26 workweeks of unpaid leave during a rolling twelve-month period to care for a injured member of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or Reserves. A covered servicemember also includes a veteran “who is undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy for a serious injury or illness” if the veteran was a member of the armed services at any time in the five years preceding the medical treatment. The 12-month period to be used for purposes of tracking this leave entitlement begins when the employee starts using his or her leave. Therefore, it is possible that the 12-month period utilized for tracking other forms of FMLA leave may not be the same as what is being utilized for tracking this entitlement.

Importantly, an employee is not entitled to more than 26 total weeks of FMLA leave including Military Caregiver leave, during the 12-month period that commences with the need for leave. Therefore, an employee is not entitled to 26 weeks of leave to care for a family member under this provision, plus an additional 12 weeks of leave for other FMLA-qualifying reasons. Employees may utilize the 26-week entitlement for each servicemember and for each illness or injury incurred. An employee may take 26 weeks of leave in consecutive 12-month periods for family members covered by this provision.

While these laws may seem to discourage the hiring of our returning servicemembers, employers who wisely elect to recruit such individuals can make a significant dent in their federal taxes. Currently, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Program provides up to a $2,400 credit if the hired veteran is 1) a member of a family that has received Food Stamps for at least 3 consecutive months in the 15 months prior to the date of hire; or 2) a person with a disability who is participating in a vocational rehabilitation program through US Veteran’s Administration. The aforementioned credit increases to $4800 for disabled veterans who were 1) hired within one year of having been discharged, or released from active duty, or 2) unemployed for any six of the last 12 months. In addition, a majority of states offer partial, or total exclusions, from state-level taxes for combat and/or other military compensation paid to troops/reserves. President Barack Obama also recently proposed a $2,400 tax credit for hiring an unemployed veteran and $4,800 for hiring a veteran who has been unemployed for six months or longer. The existing tax credit for hiring veterans with a service-connected disability would also be raised to $9,600.

Many federal and state programs are also available for these men and women to receive training and be reintegrated into the workforce. Several resources, including Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (www.esgr.org) and the Department of Labor’s VETS Program (http://www.dol.gov/vets/), provide services to servicemembers and employers to assist in these efforts. The Kentucky Office of Employment and Training also has Veterans Employment Representatives and Disabled Veteran Outreach Specialists specifically assigned to assist veterans with their employment and training needs (http://oet.ky.gov/des/veteran/veteran.asp).

In short, an employer in today’s job market would be wise to actively recruit individuals who have returned from active duty in the military or have the prospect of being called to active duty at some point during their employment. These employees bring valuable skills and hiring them should be a serious consideration of any employer in this economic climate.

© 2011 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.

Specialty Healthcare 357 NLRB Decision No. 83: Impact on Nursing Home and Resident Care Industry

Posted on September 6, 2011 in the National Law Review an article by  Joshua W. Pollack of von Briesen & Roper, S.C. regarding a decision for those in the nursing home and resident care industry:

 

Recently, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handed down an important decision for those in the nursing home and resident care industry: Specialty Healthcare, 357 NLRB No. 83. In this decision, the Board redefined the standard for “unit determination” cases for the “non-acute health care industry.” The Board’s conclusion reversed twenty years of precedent and made further unionization in the nursing home industry likely.

The Board’s decision makes unionization more likely because a key factor in the success of an organizing campaign is the size of the bargaining unit. Traditionally, unions fare better when organizing a smaller unit, whereas employers fare better when the union must organize a larger unit. Under the newly announced “traditional community of interest” standard, smaller units will be harder to challenge by employers, and thus are likely to proliferate. The Board summarized the new standard

[when a union] petition[s] for an election in a unit of employees who are readily identifiable as a group (based on job classifications, departments, functions, work locations, skills, or similar factors), and the Board finds that the employees in the group share a community of interest after considering the traditional criteria, the Board will find the petitioned-for unit to be an appropriate unit, despite a contention that employees in the unit could be placed in a larger unit which would also be appropriate or even more appropriate, unless the party so contending demonstrates that employees in the larger unit share an overwhelming community of interest with those in the petitioned-for unit.

Applying this standard, the Board held that a unit of Certified Nursing Assistants was the appropriate bargaining unit because the employer was unable to show that there was a larger group that had an “overwhelming community of interest” that overlapped the interest of the CNAs. In application, this rule will make it harder for employers to challenge prospective units and increase a union’s ability to organize smaller units.

Employers should be aware that Specialty Healthcare gives unions an advantage in their organizing efforts, and as a result employers should take proactive steps to prepare for a potential union campaign, especially those employers in the non-acute health care industry. At a minimum, supervisors should know the warning signs of unionization and how to respond. Supervisors should also be empowered with the information necessary to articulate the company’s position of a union-free workplace with credibility. Lastly, employers should also institute policies that guide employees regarding union solicitation, union access to facilities, and employee uniform policies.

©2011 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

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.

Power NY Act of 2011 Swings the Door Open for Renewable Development

Posted in the National Law Review on August 17, 2011 an article written by attorneys: David A. Domansky, Joseph G. Tirone and Brian J. Kelly of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP regarding Power NY Act of 20ll which Gov. Cuomo recently signed into law:

 

On August 4, 2011, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Power NY ACT of 2011 (A. 8510/S. 5844), a comprehensive energy bill that, among other things, reimplements and significantly revises Article X of the New York State Public Service Law. As revised, new Article X provides power project developers a more efficient, streamlined “one-stop” siting process. The new law was sought and supported by both business and environmental groups to remedy a patchwork of inconsistent local siting rules throughout New York, which have hampered project development efforts. Old Article X, which expired on January 1, 2003, was limited to power plants with 80-megawatts or more of nameplate generating capacity. New Article X reduces the capacity threshold to 25-megawatts, thereby allowing smaller generation projects, such as wind, solar and other renewable project developers, an opportunity to take advantage of the streamlined siting process.

Creation and Composition of the Review Board

Following the expiration of former Article X, developers were required to seek the requisite regulatory and environmental permits mandated by state and local laws from the various state and municipal regulatory authorities who had jurisdiction over the site where the proposed power project was to be developed. Under new Article X, the siting and licensing of electric generation facilities of at least 25-megawatts, or the increase in nameplate capacity by 25-megawatts or more of a current power facility, will fall within the purview of the New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (“Board”).The seven member Board will consist of five state agency officials (Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Economic Development, Department of Health, Department of Agriculture and Markets and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority), as well as two ad hoc members who are required to reside in the community in which the proposed facility is to be located. The Board will be tasked with determining if the contemplated project should receive a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (“Certificate”), which must be obtained before commencement of any site development or facility construction.

Filing Process

New Article X separates the Certificate process into two distinct phases, a pre-application preliminary scoping statement (the “Pre-Application”) and the actual Certificate application. In  the Pre-Application, an applicant is required to provide the Board with, among other things: (a) a description of the proposed facility and its environmental setting; (b) potential environmental and health impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed facility; (c) proposed studies or programs of studies designed to evaluate the potential environmental and health impacts; (d) measures proposed to minimize environmental impacts; and (e) identification of all other state and federal permits required for the construction, operation or maintenance of the proposed facility.

Prior to submission of the Pre-Application, the applicant must meet with interested parties, including community groups and interested state agencies to address these groups’ concerns  with regard to the proposed facility. Following the applicant’s submission of the Pre-Application, the applicant has the ability to enter into side agreements or stipulations to address any concerns regarding the siting and location of the proposed facility. Once completed, the applicant is then required to file a Certificate application with the Board, which includes: (a) a description of the site and facility to be built; (b) an evaluation of the anticipated environmental and health impacts and safety and security ramifications that the facility will have on the surrounding community; (c) a comprehensive environmental impact analysis; and (d) a comprehensive demographic, economic and physical description of the community within which the facility is to be located, compared and contrasted with the county and with the adjacent communities in which the facility is proposed.

Board Decision Process and Timeline

New Article X requires that the Board issue a final decision on a Certificate application no later than: (a) 12 months after submission of a Certificate application deemed complete by the Board for a new-build facility, and (b) six months after the submission of a complete Certificate application deemed complete by the Board for modifications to (1) an existing facility, or (2) the site of a new facility adjacent or contiguous to an existing facility, provided the new facility would result in greater operating efficiencies and lower environmental impact than the original facility.

New Article X also requires that the Board schedule a hearing on the Certificate application no later than 60 days after the date the Board determines the Certificate application is complete. After conducting and taking testimony at the hearing, the Board may grant the Certificate if it finds that: (a) the facility is a beneficial addition to or substitution for the electric generation capacity of New York; (b) the construction and operation of the facility will serve the public interest; (c) the facility’s environmental impact has been minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent practicable; and (d) the facility complies with all state and local laws and regulations.

Any appeal of the Board’s decision denying or granting a Certificate is first heard by the Board itself. The application for rehearing must be filed no later than 30 days after issuance of the Board’s decision. The Board is required to render a decision on the application no later than 90 days after the expiration of the period for filing rehearing petitions. Thereafter, an aggrieved party may seek judicial relief in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. Such proceeding must be initiated within 30 days after the issuance of a final decision by the Board on the application for rehearing.

© 2011 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

US Labor Department considers development of data tool to combat pay discrimination

Posted in the National Law Review on August 14, 2011 an article by U.S. Department of Labor regarding is considering the development of a new data tool to collect information on salaries, wages and other benefits paid to employees of federal contractors and subcontractors.

Public invited to comment during early stage of development

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs is considering the development of a new data tool to collect information on salaries, wages and other benefits paid to employees of federal contractors and subcontractors. The tool would improve OFCCP’s ability to gather data that could be analyzed for indicators of discrimination, such as disparities faced by female and minority workers. To provide an opportunity for the public to submit feedback, the department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Aug. 10 edition of the Federal Register.

OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, which prohibits companies that do business with the federal government from discriminating in employment practices — including compensation — on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin or religion. Last year, the agency announced plans to create a compensation data tool in the department’s fall 2010 regulatory agenda. In addition to providing OFCCP investigators with insight into potential pay discrimination warranting further review, the proposed tool would provide a self-assessment element to help employers evaluate the effects of their compensation practices.

“Today, almost 50 years after the Equal Pay Act became law, the wage gap has narrowed, but not nearly enough,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “The president and I are committed to ending pay discrimination once and for all.”

The Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2010 women were paid an average of 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. In addition to the gender gap, research has shown that race- and ethnicity-based pay gaps put workers of color, including men, at a disadvantage. Eliminating compensation-based discrimination is a top priority for OFCCP.

“Pay discrimination continues to plague women and people of color in the workforce,” said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu, a member of the president’s National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force. “This proposal is about gathering better data, which will allow us to focus our enforcement resources where they are most needed. We can’t truly solve this problem until we can see it, measure it and put dollar figures on it.”

The notice poses 15 questions for public response on the types of data that should be requested, the scope of information OFCCP should seek, how the data should be collected, how the data should be used, what the tool should look like, which contractors should be required to submit compensation data and how the tool might create potential burdens for small businesses. The proposal will be open to public response for 60 days, and the deadline for receiving comments is Oct. 11. To read the proposal or submit a comment, visit the federal e-rulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP’s legal authority exists under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. As amended, these three laws hold those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. For general information, call OFCCP’s toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251. Additional information is also available at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

© Copyright 2011 U.S. Department of Labor

Department of State Releases September 2011 Visa Bulletin

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Eleanor Pelta, Eric S. Bord, A. James Vázquez-Azpiri, and Lance Director Nagel of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP regarding DOS recent Visa Bulletin which sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications.

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) has released its September 2011 Visa Bulletin. The Visa Bulletin sets out per country priority date cutoffs that regulate the flow of adjustment of status (AOS) and consular immigrant visa applications. Foreign nationals may file applications to adjust their status to that of permanent resident, or to obtain approval of an immigrant visa application at an American embassy or consulate abroad, provided that their priority dates are prior to the cutoff dates specified by the DOS.

What Does the September 2011 Bulletin Say?

EB-1: All EB-1 categories remain current.

EB-2: Priority dates remain current for foreign nationals in the EB-2 category from all countries except China and India.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for Indian and Chinese nationals are as follows:

China: April 15, 2007 (no movement)
India: April 15, 2007 (no movement)

EB-3: There is continued backlog in the EB-3 category.

The relevant priority date cutoffs for foreign nationals in the EB-3 category are as follows:

China: July 15, 2004 (forward movement of one week)
India: July 8, 2002 (forward movement of five weeks)
Mexico: November 22, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)
Philippines: November 22, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)
Rest of the World: November 22, 2005 (forward movement of three weeks)

How This Affects You

Priority date cutoffs are assessed on a monthly basis by the DOS, based on anticipated demand. Cutoff dates can move forward or backward, or remain static and unchanged. Employers and employees should take the immigrant visa backlogs into account in their long-term planning, and take measures to mitigate their effects. To see the September 2011 Visa Bulletin in its entirety, please visit the DOS website at http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5542.html.

Copyright © 2011 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved. 

 

Proposed HIPAA Reporting Requirement May Lead to Increased Compliance Costs and Enforcement Action

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Nancy C. Brower and Elizabeth H. Johnson of  Poyner Spruill LLP about HHS’ notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would allow individuals to obtain an “access report” from HIPAA .  

 

 

On May 31, 2011, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would allow individuals to obtain an “access report” from HIPAA covered entities reporting virtually every instance of access to their electronic protected health information (ePHI), including all access by individual employees. The proposed access report must reflect the full name of every person or entity that accessed an individual’s ePHI (if maintained in a designated record set) in the prior three years.

An express purpose of this proposal is to allow individuals to identify situations in which a member of a covered entity’s workforce inappropriately accessed their ePHI. Individuals can then file a complaint with the OCR claiming improper employee access to ePHI.

In a recent case, the OCR entered into a $865,000 settlement with the University of California at Los Angeles Health Systems (UCLAHS) after investigating celebrity complaints of potential inappropriate ePHI access by UCLAHS employees. The investigation led to OCR allegations that UCLAHS employees repeatedly accessed ePHI of many patients, including several celebrity patients, when they did not have any job-related need to access the data, and that UCLAHS failed to implement security controls to reduce the risk of impermissible access, failed to provide Security Rule training, and failed to apply appropriate sanctions against workforce members who violated UCLAHS policies and procedures.

In the NPRM, OCR stated that it believes the degree of access logging required in the new access report is currently being captured and stored by covered entities’ electronic information systems because OCR interprets HIPAA’s audit controls standard (45 C.F.R. § 164.312(b)) and information system activity review implementation specification (45 C.F.R. § 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)) to require that all such access be logged, including “view” or “read only” access. However, this interpretation of the Security Rule is much broader than many had believed, and the NPRM has already fallen under criticism as a result. If the new rule is implemented as proposed, many covered entities will incur significant unexpected costs related to systems modifications, data storage (access logs must be retained for three years), training, privacy notice revision and redistribution and response to individual requests.

Business associates will have to undertake a similar degree of implementation to provide covered entities with access logs relevant to the access report, and covered entities will need to consider updating their business associate agreements to reflect this requirement. Individual privacy complaints filed with covered entities and OCR may well increase if this new rule is adopted, either because covered entities will fail to completely or timely provide the access report, or because individuals reviewing their access report will find real or (more likely) perceived cases of inappropriate access to their records.
© 2011 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

Unclaimed Property Audits: No Laughing Matter

Posted on August 8, 2011 in the  National Law Review an article about several  states’ increased focus on unclaimed property and companies needing to be proactive in monitoring and improving their unclaimed property compliance practices.   This article was written by Marc J. Musyl, Micah Schwalb and Sarah Niemiec Seedig of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Failure to Comply with Unclaimed Property Laws Can Cost a Company Millions in Interest and Penalties Alone

Many states continue to turn to unclaimed property as a source of revenue in the face of budget shortfalls. During the last two years, some state regulators have pursued non-traditional types of unclaimed property and state legislatures have revised their unclaimed property statutes to reduce dormancy periods, effectively causing companies to remit more unclaimed property in a shorter time frame. In New York, for example, the legislature lowered dormancy periods from five to three years for a number of different asset classes typically held by financial institutions.

Acting upon provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC recently proposed to expand rules that would require brokers and dealers to escheat sums payable to security holders. Failure to comply with these laws can mean millions of dollars in interest and penalties for a company, which can negatively impact a company’s bottom line. For example, a growing number of life insurers are being audited by multiple states to assess their compliance with unclaimed property laws. One state regulator estimated that these life insurer audits could transfer “north of $1 billion” from the audited life insurers into the pockets of consumers, in the form of benefit payments, and revenue to the states, in the form of unclaimed property, interest and fines.

Unclaimed Property and State Audits

Unclaimed property laws require the remittance of certain types of property to the state for safekeeping if a business is unable to contact the owner of that property after a specified period, known as the dormancy period. Each state has its own set of laws that set forth the types of property subject to escheat, the dormancy period for each category of property, and reporting rules. Examples of items that can constitute unclaimed property include unused gift cards, uncashed payroll checks, uncashed stock dividend checks, abandoned corporate stock, and abandoned trust funds.

States have the ability to audit companies to determine their compliance with the unclaimed property laws. If an audit reveals improperly held or abandoned assets, states can seize the property, hold it in trust for a rightful owner, and impose costs, fines, and interest against the offending entity. In severe cases, the interest and fines can exceed the amount of unclaimed property at issue. These audits are often conducted by third-party auditors paid on a contingency basis, thus creating an incentive for them to maximize the unclaimed property uncovered. What’s more, the lack of a statute of limitations on escheat in most jurisdictions can lead to decades of accumulated unclaimed property liabilities.

35 States: How Does an Audit Get So Large?

Typically, an audit begins when a state engages a third-party auditor and provides a company with notice that it is under audit. The third-party auditor, being paid on a contingency basis, can expand its compensation by adding additional states to the audit. If only one state has authorized an unclaimed property audit, the thirdparty auditor only receives a percentage of the unclaimed property that was required to be reported to that state. However, if 20 states have authorized the audit, the third-party auditor now receives a percentage of the unclaimed property that should have been reported to 20 states, significantly increasing the auditor’s overall compensation.

This snowball effect is exactly what happened to some life insurers, and what could happen to any company. For example, the State of California initiated anaudit of John Hancock in 2008. This audit was undertaken by Verus Financial L.L.C. Fast forward three years to 2011, and Verus has now been authorized by 35 states and the District of Columbia to investigate and audit numerous insurance companies. These audits center around life insurers’ claims handling processes. The Social Security Administration publishes a Death Master File, updated weekly, which can be used to verify deaths. Insurers have been using the Death Master File to find dead annuity holders in order to stop payments. On the flip side, the insurers have not been using the Death Master File to find deceased policy insureds in order to pay the policy beneficiaries. The states and Verus have seized upon this disparate use of the Death Master File in their investigation of whether the funds should have been paid out to beneficiaries, in the form of benefit payments, or the states, in the form of unclaimed property.

Why Should I Be Concerned?: John Hancock as an Example

As a result of the Verus audit discussed above, John Hancock reportedly negotiated a global resolution agreement with 29 states which took effect June 1. As part of John Hancock’s settlement with the State of Florida, John Hancock will pay over $2.4 million in investigative costs and legal fees to Florida, and will establish a $10 million fund to pay death benefits and interest owed to beneficiaries. The amounts owed to beneficiaries that cannot be located will be turned over to Florida’s unclaimed property division. In addition, John Hancock has agreed to change its claims-handling procedures. Throughout the process, John Hancock has maintained that it has not violated the law. Given the number of insurance companies currently under audit, news of further settlements should be expected in the future.

In light of success with life insurers, recent legislative changes and continued state budget crunches, it is reasonable to expect an expansion of audits to other industries. It is widely estimated that a significant percentage of companies are not in full compliance with unclaimed property laws. There is no statute of limitations in most jurisdictions, as mentioned above, so the look-back period can be fairly lengthy and cover periods for which the company no longer has adequate records. The auditor may estimate the unclaimed property liability for such periods, which can lead to a company paying more than it would have otherwise owed. Further, interest and penalties can be severe. For example, in California interest is calculated by state statute at 12% per annum from the date the property should have been reported.

Taking Control of Unclaimed Property Compliance

As a result of the states’ increased focus on unclaimed property, companies need to be proactive in monitoring and, if necessary, improving their unclaimed property compliance practices. As a preliminary step, companies should determine whether or not they are currently in compliance with the unclaimed property laws. Many states have voluntary compliance programs for companies that are out of compliance. Oftentimes, by entering into a voluntary disclosure agreement with the appropriate authorities, a company can retain control of the process, limit the look-back period (remember, there is often no statute of limitations!), and limit the penalties and/or interest that may be owed for non-compliance. Typically, these voluntary programs are not available to companies once they have been selected for audit. Analyzing a target’s unclaimed property liability exposure should also be part of the due diligence process in a potential acquisition. Attention to unclaimed property compliance now can save valuable company resources later.