Becker's Iowa Environmental Law Update : Iowa Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Charles Becker : Belin McCormick P.C. Law Firm : IA Regulatory Compliance, Site Cleanups

In an earlier post, I noted that EPA was in the process of setting its enforcement priorities for the years 2011 through 2013. At the time, the Agency had fifteen areas of possible consideration. EPA has finalized its list and out of the fifteen areas under consideration, they chose five and added a sixth area not previously considered.

The areas that have been chosen for the final cut are:

• Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Storm Water Out of our Nations’ Water – This enforcement initiative will focus on reducing discharges from combined sewer overflows, sanitary overflows and municipal separate storm sewer system. EPA will be requiring various commitments from cities to implement solutions to the problems caused by aging urban infrastructure. For many municipalities, this means huge and expensive construction projects will need to be undertaken in the very near future;
• Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Service and Ground Waters – Concentrated animal feeding operations generate a large amount of manure which can end up being discharged into surface waters or seep into ground water. EPA intends to strengthen its enforcement focus on existing large and medium sized facilities that are not in compliance with permitting regulations;
• Cutting Toxic Air Pollution that Affects Communities’ Health – Hazardous air pollutants have been determined to present significant threats to human health. This enforcement initiative will focus on industrial and commercial facilities that are allowing excess emissions;
• Reducing Widespread Air Pollution from the Largest Sources, Especially the Coal-Fired Utility, Cement, Glass and Acid Sectors –Many industries have ignored the New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements when building new facilities or making significant modifications to existing facilities. This national enforcement initiative will target these emissions, particularly at coal-fired utility, cement, glass and acid plants;
• Reducing Pollution from Mineral Processing Operations – Mountaintop mining has not gone unnoticed by EPA. Mining and mineral processing facilities pose high risk to human health and the environment with many of the sites already being on the Super Fund National Priorities List. This initiative will seek to bring these facilities into compliance;
• Assuring Energy at Extraction Sector Compliance with Environmental Laws – This is a new topic for EPA. The initiative indicates that EPA understands that a push for “clean energy” sources can result in a dirty environment. A particular area of scrutiny will be oil and gas extraction as well as coal mining.

Those that got knocked off of the list include environmental justice, Indian country drinking water, marine debris, RCRA enforcement, RCRA financial assurance, pesticides at day care facilities, industrial surface impoundments, wetlands and worker safety for agricultural pesticides.

Businesses should be aware of the final priority list because EPA has, in the past, followed it when deciding where to place its emphasis (and enforcement funds).  While I doubt that the mining, oil, gas, coal-fired utilities, CAFOs or industries producing hazardous air pollutants are going to be particularly shocked by the initiatives targeting them, some municipalities may be very unpleasantly surprised by their next visit from EPA.

RELATED POST:  EPA Has Its Priorities

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A key aspect of being effective is figuring out what needs your attention right now and what can wait until later. EPA seems to understand this.  Every three years, EPA creates a set of national enforcement priorities setting out the areas in which it will focus its inspections, compliance assistance and enforcement actions over the course of those three years. It provides for interesting reading.

For example, the priorities for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were:

• Air toxics

• New source review/prevention of significant deterioration

• Concentrated animal feeding operations

• Municipal combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows

• Storm water
• 
Mineral processing
• 
Financial responsibility
• 
Indian country

The Agency is in the process of setting its priorities for 2011, 2012 and 2013. To identify the possible areas of consideration, EPA collected information from the various regions, states, tribes, associations and the public. Based on the information it received, EPA created the following list of candidates for the upcoming enforcement priorities:

• Air Toxics – EPA is proposing to continue to focus on leak detection and repair and the presence of hazardous air pollutants near schools;
• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) – this initiative would focus on the regulation of surface water runoff carrying animal waste into waterways. There is no discussion of air or odor issues;
• Environmental Justice – a review of burdens that pollution has disproportionately placed on vulnerable populations including children, communities of color, Native Americans and the poor;
• Indian Country Drinking Water – it has been determined that the level of noncompliance of public water systems in Indian country is significantly hirer than at comparable public water systems outside of Indian country. This initiative would attempt to identify the reasons why and find a method of correcting those deficiencies;
• Marine Debris – this would focus on debris that is improperly discharged into a water way. Enforcement of current regulations and cleanup activities would be key components of the initiative. It is viewed as a good fit to address along with municipal runoff issues;
• Mineral Processing – mineral processing and mining use strong chemicals and generate large volumes of waste for disposal. Over the past decade, significant damage has been done to the environment from these operations. This initiative would focus on inspections and sampling by EPA;
• Municipal Infrastructure – the storm water and sanitary sewer piping for many cities is outdated and frequently causes discharge events. This initiative would require significant modifications and repairs to many of the city systems;
• New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration – EPA has determined that many air pollutant sources have made operational changes that have resulted in increased air emissions, but failed to obtain proper permitting. The industrial sectors which will be reviewed are coal-fired electric utilities, cement manufacturing facilities, sulfuric and nitric acid manufacturing facilities, glass manufacturing facilities and lime manufacturing sites;
• RCRA Enforcement – increased emphasis on cleanups of contaminated facilities and creation of a nationally consistent approach to enforcement at all RCRA facilities;
• RCRA Financial Assurance – increased enforcement of determining that sufficient funds are set aside for response and closure of RCRA facilities;
• Resource Extraction – various forms of resource extraction, such as mountaintop mining and oil and gas development, have caused increased concerns about a rise in levels of air pollution and water quality degradation. This initiative would increase the focus on the regulation of these resource extraction activities under CAA, CWA and SDWA, with emphasis on federal lands and Indian Country;
• Pesticides at Day Care Facilities – a study done in 2001 of wipe samples from indoor services at day care centers identified at least one pesticide in every day care center studied. Some centers had up to ten different kinds of pesticides in use. This initiative would investigate the use and effect of pesticides at day care centers;
• Surface Impoundments – many industrial facilities use surface impoundments to treat or store non-hazardous liquid and solid waste which can contaminate surface water, groundwater and air. Additionally, hazardous waste storage in such impoundments without a RCRA permit is a violation of law. EPA estimates there are 18,000 surface impoundments operating and that inspection and oversight is a worthwhile initiative;
• Wetlands – recent studies show a pattern of wetland loss under the Clean Water Act which justifies an enforcement initiative;
• Worker Protection Standards for Agricultural Pesticides – studies show that farm worker families have a higher level of pesticide exposure than non-farm worker families. In light of the number of farm workers and pesticide applicators, an initiative of inspections for both product and use compliance is necessary.

Cynthia Giles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, spoke at the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council on January 29, 2010. At that time, Ms. Giles indicated that the fifteen new enforcement areas for consideration were likely too many and that, when finally published, there will likely be fewer than nine initiatives for the 2011 through 2013 period. She also indicated that air toxics emissions, large animal feeding operations and new source review violations will likely make the cut for the national enforcement priorities.

It is important for businesses and legal practitioners to carefully note the final list of initiatives. At least over the past three years, a great deal of the EPA’s enforcement activities have been conducted on the topics that they identified as initiatives and there is every reason to believe that this will continue in the future. To be forewarned . . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent guest editorial in the Des Moines Register makes an interesting observation about water quality in agricultural states -- it stinks.

The authors state that Iowa has a double standard concerning sewage. That is, there are significant and costly regulations for point sources, such as municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities that discharge into rivers and streams, but virtually no regulation of non-point discharges, like the transporting and spreading of manure on farmland that then washes off into the waterways. According to the authors:

If state officials hope to stop the degradation of Iowa’s waters, it does not make sense to ignore the agricultural component, which accounts for at least 90 percent of our water pollution.

To be sure, it’s hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while continuing to allow industrial agriculture to spread untreated sewage into the land?

The authors conclude that the agricultural, non-point sources should be held to the same standard as point sources and suggest that agricultural discharges should be required to pass through a wastewater treatment facility, though the article fails to mention the staggering cost of that proposal.

It’s certainly an interesting point, and it is not unique to Iowa or the United States. The Clean Water Act has always given a free ride to non-point pollution sources. Though it may make no scientific sense to say that a 40-acre field that has agricultural runoff is somehow different from a 40-acre field that is being prepared for a subdivision, that has been the regulatory scheme for decades. And it has been true despite the fact that, as pointed out by the authors, the vast majority of water contamination can be attributed to non-point sources.

In the past, even the mention of imposing such costs on agriculture, a significant employer in many state economies, was political suicide -- and maybe it will continue to be. But as EPA and state environmental agencies begin to force more and more costly regulation on point sources (for example, storm water runoff from construction sites), those same sources are going to start pressing the question of why non-point sources, which are significantly larger polluters, are virtually exempt from expensive regulation. It may be that it’s going to become harder and harder to keep this cow sacred. At a minimum, it’s going to make for an interesting debate. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama promised / threatened (which eye you use affects the view) to increase nuclear power generation. His proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 gives support to that promise.

The proposed budget increases loan guarantees for nuclear power generation from $18.5 billion  to $54.5 billion. While the proposal certainly has its detractors, any program that gets its funding tripled in the present economic times should be very happy. Is this a setback for renewable energy sources like solar and wind power? The answer appears to be, no.

While the proposed budget certainly increases the support for nuclear power production, it also cut $36 billion in tax benefits over the next decade for oil and gas and $2.3 billion for the coal industry (though, to be fair, these cuts are like giving a manicure to a polar bear) and provides for credit subsidy funding of $500 million to support $3 to $5 billion of loan guarantees for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Taken together, these proposals would appear to be a pretty strong indication that Obama wants: 1) less oil and coal; 2) more renewable energy; and 3) more nuclear power generation. 

In the end, Congress will make its own decision as to what projects to fund, but it is notable that this President seems to be indicating that the extreme left voices that rail against allowing any nuclear power need to be ignored. If climate change legislation has a chance in 2010, a nuclear component will certainly be necessary and the President’s proposed budget simply reflects this political reality.

With his statement at the State of the Union and now with his support in the proposed budget, it will be difficult for Republicans to argue that this President is not trying to find a middle ground for climate change legislation. (Who says he hasn’t learned anything from the health care debacle). Now we’ll see if Congress (i.e. the Senate), sees it the same way.

RELATED POST: Will Nuclear Power Be Part Of The Solution?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The game show that is Congress is nearly done with its first act of the new year.  The performer, Health Care Reform (H.C.R.), started out great.  In her first thirty seconds she hit all the high notes and put on a show that would make Madonna blush. But the last minute was a killer.  The stones started flying.  A couple of the 60 mice (an integral part of the show) refused to dance until they got some extra pay. And parts started falling off of her costume until, in the end, she was almost unrecognizable from her entrance.  Simon and company were brutal on the act.  We'll just have to wait for the public's official vote, but it doesn't look good.

If you look carefully in the wings, you'll see the next act. It's a big guy, probably a baritone, and he's . . . trembling like a wet kitten  C.C.L. (Climate Change Legislation) has been watching what happened to H.C.R. and appears to be looking for the exit.  A quick text message to bolster C.C.L.'s spirits might be in order:

C.C.,

You need to buck up, kid. It's not as bad as it looks. Let me give you three great reasons why they're gonna love you.

First, you're not even distantly related to H.C.R.  Sure, you've got the same promoter, but you've been practicing a lot more than her and the number you're going to do is a lot more popular.  Comparing your acts is  like comparing apples and cars -- you'd like to have them both, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Second, you may not know it, but your fan club grew last week.  You know that group that you thought hated your song?  A bunch of them actually love it!  Turns out that they think they can might be able to make some money off of it. Two separate corporate groups, having a total of more than 150 businesses want you to succeed.  I'm talking heavy weights here: Toyota, Alcoa, PepsiCo, Shell and Campbell's.  The Republican members of the audience, the one's with the really big rocks, are going to think twice about sending those rocks your way with supporters like these.  Don't believe me?  Listen for yourself.  One group put an ad in the Wall Street Journal and said:

How will America take back control of its energy future while enhancing our national Security? . . . How can we protect our natural resources and future generations from climate change? . . . We believe it's time for Democrats and Republicans to unite behind bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs.  It's a question of American leadership.

And another group sent a letter to the President and Congress saying:

American business leaders from companies of all sizes and sectors of our economy call on you to move swiftly and boldly to enact comprehensive energy and climate legislation. . . .  We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate. . . . We stand ready to to work with you to create and grow this important economic sector.  Now is the time to act.  Together we can lead.

Wow!  You can almost feel the love.  And this comes from the group that everybody said didn't like your song.  All H.C.R ever got was hate mail and death threats.  You've got some great buzz. 

And finally, news from the group that actually counts --your  voting public.  Two new polls show that there is strong bipartisan support to take action on climate change.  I know it sounds contrary to what you heard last week, but do polls lie?   That's your song that they're talking about!  (A small word of advise: Before you start singing, announce that your song is in support of making America safer from our enemies.  Don't ask why, just do it).

I see that Simon is just about done ripping apart . . . err . . . providing creative criticism to H.C.R.  In a few minutes it will be your turn.  Stand up straight, look the camera in the eye and belt out that song like our life depended on it (because it just might).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When one car collides with the side of a second car, the results are usually bad.  That's what T. Boone Pickens recently did to wind power.  The funny thing is, they used to ride in the same car.

T. Boone is the promoter of what is referred to as the "Pickens Plan."  That Plan originally emphasized wind power as its solution to the energy and foreign oil problem.  He even planned a 4,000 megawatt wind farm in Texas and went so far as to order 667 turbines from GE to get the project started.

The wind plans are no more. While the Pickens Plan will go on, it is now focused on natural gas as the solution. The question is why the change of heart. 

Well, for T. Boone, it's not so much a change of heart as it is a change of wallet.  He has explained that the price of natural gas is so low that it doesn't make sense to pursue the relatively more expensive wind solution.  Recognizing that T. Boone has more money than most individuals, corporations or countries, does this mean that wind energy is dead?  It doesn't appear so.

Currently, the U.S. has 31,109 MW of wind power production, with another 5,567 being planned.  Wind projects in Iowa and Canada are moving forward.  130 turbines off of the coast of Massachusetts appear to be close to approval.  China is likely to become a world-wide leader in wind generation and is placing turbines both in China and the U.S.  Europe is scheduled to pick up 1,000 MW of wind energy this year.

Certainly the recession and T. Boone have delivered blows to the wind industry.  But these seem to be temporary problems.  While cost is an issue, subsidies for every sustainable energy source will be necessary to make them viable.  For wind, the real issue is creating the transmission lines necessary for delivery of the wind energy from the areas that have the wind to the areas that need the energy.   That's an issue that the Midwestern states will need to address soon.  But don't count out wind just because T. Boone is a bad driver.  The accident didn't total the car, it just left it a little dented.   All indications are that wind will continue to be a significant player going forward. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Question: “Where is the logical place to install solar panels?”
Answer by most: “The desert.”
Answer by Dianne Feinstein: “Uhh . . . not so fast.”

Between 1999 and 2004, 600,000 acres of land in the Mojave Desert were acquired by an environmental group and donated to the Federal Bureau of Land Management. There are now 14 solar energy and five wind energy projects that are seeking to construct renewable energy projects on the land.

California Senator Feinstein, a supporter of climate change legislation, is introducing legislation to prohibit the use of the land for solar or wind projects. In her words:

The Catellus lands were purchased with nearly $45 million in private funds and $18 million in federal funds and donated to the federal government for the purpose of conservation, and that commitment must be upheld. Period.

It seems to me that someone might argue that Ms. Feinstein’s definition of “conservation” is pretty narrow. Isn’t the opportunity to create renewable energy a conservation purpose? Won’t wind and solar energy help to conserve other resources, like coal and clean air? If less oil is used, aren't we conserving natural resources? 

Comments made by the Senator indicate that her objection may be to the aesthetics of the proposals. Solar panel facilities and wind farms are big and visable. For some they are beautiful, for others they are ugly. According to a group that discussed the matter with Ms. Feinstein, she seemed concerned about the visual effect of huge solar farms on Route 66, the highway that runs through the Mojave.

If aesthetics begin to control the debate on locating renewable energy facilities, the winners will be the climate change objectors. They’ll sit back and watch the environmental advocates shoot at each other. For example, Ms. Feinstein’s position, which has already resulted in two major solar projects being canceled, has prompted Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to say: “This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review.” Governor Schwarzenegger, trying to increase the use of renewable energy in California to 33% by 2020, said: “If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it.” Bear in mind, these voices are supposedly on the same side. 

This is one of those climate change issues that the environmental activists and climate change proponents need to get resolved quickly. Those promoting renewable energy need to understand that allowing aesthetic considerations is a sure fire way to severely limit solar and wind from the renewable energy mix because there will always be those (frequently powerful individuals) who will say that big and shiny is ugly. Without those options, what is left is primarily coal and nuclear. While that certainly is an approach that will be supported by Lamar Alexander and John McCain, I’m fairly certain it’s not what climate change advocates are contemplating.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While the discussions in Copenhagen move forward in fits and starts, it appears that serious progress is being made on the home front.  On December 10th, Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham held a press conference to announce that they are going to propose climate change legislation designed to garner the necessary 60 (and perhaps more) votes.  Draft legislation was not produced by the trio, but a written statement setting out the framework of the upcoming legislation was provided.  There were three areas of discussion that I found particularly interesting.

First, nuclear power is a go.  John McCain and Lamar Alexander required this and Graham, while discussing it, said that we will need 117 nuclear plants and that "the nuclear power industry represents the best of American jobs that will never go overseas."  It will be interesting to see how much the industry will need to be subsidized to make it viable.

Second, the Midwestern politicians who want assurances that their constituents will not be penalized for having relied on coal for their energy source in the past, will be satisfied.  During the move to cleaner energy, there will be "transitional assistance to households and businesses to ease the shift to a low-carbon economy." In other words, energy costs in the Midwest are not going to be disproportionate to the rest of the country.   

Finally, and most surprising to me, was the declaration by the Senators that they will be "ensuring a future for coal."  In their words:

Our country has plentiful, accessible coal resources and infrastructure.  It is a key component of our current fuel mix. . . .  Coal's future as part of the energy mix is inseparable from the passage of comprehensive climate change and energy legislation.  We will commit significant resources to the rapid development and deployment of clean coal technology, and dedicated support for early deployment of carbon capture and sequestration. 

In no uncertain terms, the Senators are stating that significant support will be given to ensuring that coal will be part of the mix of energy production going forward. Those that like to argue that "clean coal" is an oxymoron have been heard and their position has been rejected.  From a political point of view, it was a bold, and necessary, declaration.

The statements made by Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham offer  renewed hope that something will actually get done in the near term.  Extremists have been angling for an opportunity to say that we should blow everything up and just start over because they didn't get what they wanted.  At least these three Senators recognize that that isn't progress, it's capitulation. Now we'll see if they can find another 57 like-minded votes.

RELATED POSTS:  Fairness In Allocating Greenhouse Gas Allowances

                             Will Nuclear Power Be Part Of The Solution?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

“Fairness” is a relative, not an absolute, concept.  If this was not the case, lawyers would be out of a job.  Apparently, this truism can also apply to senators.

With Copenhagen fast approaching, climate change legislation will again be the topic of the day.  Cap-and-trade language, as currently proposed in both the House and the Senate, allocates free CO2 allowances to electrical distributors based on a 50/50 formula; that is, 50% on total emissions and 50% on total energy sales. Under this formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase more allowances than they would if the allowances were allocated based only on emissions, and those higher costs will be passed on to their customers.

Fourteen Democratic senators, from coal-dependent, Midwestern states, have written a letter to Senate Democratic leaders requesting that the 50/50 formula be changed to base the allowances solely on emissions.

The effect of using the 50/50 formula is that those states that have historically relied more heavily on coal-fired electrical generation, such as Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado, will pay significantly more for future power, during the transition period to cleaner energy, than under a 100% emissions formula.  The fourteen senators argue that  legislation must equitably distribute transition assistance across individuals, states and regions.  Put another way, they are saying that in this transition period, we should not penalize one group or geographic area, so the 100% emission formula is the "fair" thing to do.

There are, of course, those who disagree.  They argue that the purpose of the legislation is to create financial incentives to switch to lower-carbon fuel sources, so causing higher costs to higher polluting states, is, in fact, “fair” and appropriate.  It is, in their view, not proper to let one group be bailed out for relying so heavily on coal-fired energy in the past.

So who's right?  Like most arguments that address fairness, it all depends on where you stand.

If you believe that cleaner energy is something that had to happen last week and that we must mandate an immediate change, then it would be “fair” to force the higher expense of cleaner energy on one group. If you believe that it will take some time to wean ourselves away from using coal as the primary form of electrical generation (which we have used for more than 125 years), then it would be “fair” to attempt to make the transition less painful as proposed by the senators.

Which view should prevail?  That's for you to decide, but let me add two pragmatic considerations to the mix.

First, despite the best efforts of all concerned, coal will be with us for a long time. It will likely get cleaner but, due to cost and increases in demand for electricity, it will be a significant part of the mix, along with increasing use of solar, wind, geothermal and hydro. In fact, the U.S. Energy Administration expects coal to account for 47% of U.S. electricity in 2030, which is a 2% decrease from the present.

Second, in this age when a Senate majority requires 60 votes, can 14 votes be ignored?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When it comes to polling consumers about their environmental beliefs, I admit to being a skeptic. People just don't tell the truth. They want to, but they just can’t help themselves.

Ask a consumer if he/she supports prohibiting air pollution from an industrial facility and you will get roughly the same response as if you asked them if the United States is the greatest country on earth. Sierra Club, Greenpeace and hundreds of other environmental groups have done an excellent job of making it “un-American” to be anything other than an unqualified supporter of everything green. The problem is that a large majority of consumers don’t really seem to mean it. What they mean is that so long as it does not cost them any money, they will be supportive. A recent study done by Grail Research entitled “The Green Revolution” provides some illuminating poll results along these lines.

In September of 2009, Grail Research polled 600 consumers about their purchases, or possible purchases, of green products.  There are many significant points made in the Report, but let me focus on a few of the more interesting findings:

1.  85% of those polled stated that they have bought green products.  However, only 8% of consumers buy green for a majority of their purchases (these 8% are referred to as "Dark Green" consumers);

2.  93% said that a company being perceived as green was important to their purchasing decision, yet about 80% were unable to identify green companies;

3.  15% of those polled were non-green consumers and, for 70% of them, their top reason for not going green was that the products were too expensive. Of the remaining 85%, a sizable majority will consider a green product only if it is superior or at least on par with its conventional counterpart;

4.  Of the various reasons given by consumers for not buying green (too expensive, the recession, don't feel a need, not easily available, green is a fad, and the product reviews aren't good), price and the economic recession are the main factors preventing consumers from buying green products in new categories.

I know there are a lot of ways to interpret polling results, but to me, these answers suggest that lip service is being paid to being green, with the pocketbook voting otherwise.  Put another way, consumers apparently want to buy green, but they need to know the cost of doing so.

Is it a bad thing that people are green primarily when it doesn't cost them anything? Not necessarily.  Especially in this economy, it's consumer nature.  But do we have to ignore that nature?  These findings indicate  that advancing an environmental agenda is likely to be a lot more successful if there is an economic advantage (which is often the case) rather than lamenting that the end of the world is near or that your puppy is going to die.   It's just a thought.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 16, 2009, EPA drew a line in the sand regarding mountaintop mining. With regard to the Spruce No. 1 Service Mine Permit located in Logan County, West Virginia, EPA informed Arch Coal, Inc. that it was beginning the process that could result in the rescission of its Clean Water Act permit.  Although the mine had a validly-issued permit from the Corps of Engineers, EPA believes that it has broad authority to veto the Corps' issued permit if it finds that serious water quality damage may occur and that there are methods to avoid such damage.   In the words of William Early, the acting regional administrator for EPA in Region III:

We recognize the issued permit contains several provisions that may be intended to address water quality and mitigation based upon information and data available at the time [of the issuance of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit]. However, in light of new data and information since permit issuance, EPA remains concerned with much of the analysis set forth in your letter, particularly as it relates to the potential for adverse water quality impacts, further avoidance and minimization measures, the potential for accumulative impacts, and identification and enforceability of success criteria for mitigation.

Mr. Early’s concern, as stated in the letter, is that the operation of the mine “may result in unacceptable adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources.” He noted that the project allows for the construction of six valley fills for placement of excess spoil material generated through the surface coal mining activities and that there were only minimally acceptable methods to minimize impacts to aquatic resources. In EPA’s view, “there is the potential for [the mine’s] associated discharges to cause further stream degradation.” Early also noted that the existing permit fails to contain adequate measures to mitigate environmental damage and does not set out what procedure would be appropriate if water-quality impacts would happen to occur.

The action of EPA is notable in several respects:

• It is the first time that EPA has threatened to rescind a permit for a project that had been previously authorized.
• Since 1989, only one other project has received a Section 404(c) veto from EPA.
• Prior to 1989, a total of eleven projects have received a veto, none of which involved mining.

Additionally, it is interesting to note that EPA's review is purportedly based on "new data and information since permit issuance,"  a process that took almost ten years.  Some might wonder wherther it is new evidence or a new administration that is driving the review and, if it is the latter, what impact will it have on business to know that the fundamental rules of the game (such as revoking already issued permits) can be changed every four or eight years? 

Though environmentalists may look on the EPA action as an indicator that the EPA under Obama is going to be much more aggressive against mountaintop mining, perhaps this is not really the best test case for that proposition. This site was, after all, one of the very few sites that even the Bush-era EPA was reluctant to give a glowing review. In June of 2006, during the comment period for the permit for the Spruce Mine, the site received a ranking of “EC-2,” which equates to “Environmental Concerns and Insufficient Information.”  Further, in its statement, EPA "emphasizes that the Spruce No. 1 represents an unusual set of circumstances we do not expect to be repeated again."

While it is a significant first step, what action is taken by this EPA for the remaining seventy-eight mountaintop mining permits will be much more telling.

RELATED POST:  Switchback Regulation and Mountaintop Mining: The Wrong Path?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a global-warming parade going on and everyone seems to want to join in.  Well, not everyone.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has staked out its position that the assertion that global warming is harmful to human health is something that should not simply be assumed, but should be proven, before trillions of dollars are spent “fixing” it. Not an irrational position, but one which has caused five large companies to pull their support for the Chamber, the most visible being Nike and Apple. The question that should be asked is why -- why have the companies chosen to walk away from the Chamber?

Someone Else Is Better?

It certainly couldn’t be that they will be better represented by some other lobbying group. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $26 million in lobbying in 2009, which is double any other single entity. Historically, the Chamber has had, and spent, a lot of money and has been effective in Washington, D.C.

Difference of Opinion?

Could it be that these companies philosophically disagree with the Chamber and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face? Well, Catherine Novell (V.P. of Worldwide Government Affairs at Apple) did say:

We strongly object to the Chamber’s recent comments opposing the EPA’s effort to limit greenhouse gases. . . .  Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort.

Nike, who relinquished its Chamber board seat but has not yet quit the group, said:

We believe that on this issue of climate change, the Chamber has not represented the diversity of perspective held by the board of directors.

General Electric and Johnson and Johnson have also issued statements that they disagree with the Chamber’s climate policy.

Certainly these companies, with their collective millions of shareholders, might choose to walk away from a $26 million lobbying force based on principle and righteous indignation. That’s possible. But perhaps something else is at work.

That's Where The Money Is?

Another possible explanation might be that they are doing what all companies strive to do — they are trying to sell their products to the greatest possible number of consumers. Perhaps these huge, market savvy companies believe that their customers believe that climate change is a fact that does not need debating and that these customers just might be offended by any one (or any company) that thinks otherwise. These companies have seen what happens when a company appears to be anti-environment, and it simply isn’t worth the risk. Of course, the Chamber doesn’t sell shoes or computers or contact lenses so they don’t need to worry about what the consumer might believe. But the Apples of this world do.

Ironically, environmentalists couldn't have a better friend than the Chamber right now.  With each vocal defection, the inevitability of climate change legislation grows a little closer.

I’ve said it before: "An Inconvenient Truth" gave global-warming advocates a free pass. The parade of environmental reform has started and the huge elephant that is public opinion has already lumbered past the question of whether there is global warming and whether it is bad for us and has moved on to the question of what could be the cure. Right or wrong, it is too late to turn the elephant (or the donkey) around. Apple, Nike and P&G recognize this fact. One has to wonder if the Chamber will accept it and realize that the only way to affect the parade is to get in front of the elephant.

RELATED POSTS:  Monkeys and Science , Part Deux: Putting Climate Change On Trial  

                             The Most Important Environmental Law Case                  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Traveling up a mountain is never an easy proposition -- thin air, cold temperatures and those dizzying roads that whipsaw back and forth for miles.  While I recognize the need for switchback roads to convey the traffic, I have trouble using them as a model for environmental regulation, but it seems that that is where we are today; that is, changing environmental policy 180 degrees with each change of administration.  A case in point is Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. SEACC and EPA's recently announced initiative relating to mountaintop mining.

                                                 THE COEUR ALASKA CASE

The last time we saw  Coeur Alaska, the company had just won their case before the United States Supreme Court and could fill a lake with sludge from their mining operations. They were allowed to do so because a Bush-era EPA policy, as set forth in a director's memorandum, said that it was acceptable for the Corp of Engineers to issue the permit without applying the performance standards of the Clean Water Act to the fill material.  The Court deferred to EPA's interpretation because it was "not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation[s].”

Here we are, eighty-one days since the decision and all you can say is what a difference a few days make.

                                                MOUNTAINTOP MINING REVIEW
 

On September 11th, EPA declared that all seventy-nine pending permits for mountaintop removal mining would be sent back for additional review under the term of the Clean Water Act. EPA’s concern is that these operations would “likely cause water quality impacts.”

Lisa Jackson, the EPA Administrator, attempted to emphasis that this was an "enhanced coordination process" between EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers and that it was not a change in policy. With all due respect to Ms. Jackson, I think she misspoke. It isn’t a change in law, but it is certainly a change in policy. She said as much when she told the Tampa Bay Press: “The whole permitting process had become a bit toothless.” In a year’s time, this EPA will have every molar, bicuspid, canine and incisor back in place (the jury is still out on the wisdom teeth).

                                                             THE IMPACT

The problematic holding of the Coeur Alaska case isn’t only what Coeur Alaska won, but how it won it. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that EPA has great discretion in all things environmental. In that case, the holding worked to the advantage of the business.  However,  that ruling (and others) also gives EPA the ability to quickly reverse the environmental policies of the past eight years.  I agree that to the victor goes the spoils and that changes in many areas are appropriate.  My concern is that when there is another change in EPA (one of those few guarantees in life), the road will almost certainly take a hard turn, this time to the right.  And when the inevitable happens, it will turn back yet again.

In the end, maybe switchback regulation is as necessary as switchback roads.  But while both will get you where you want to go, they certainly expend a lot of energy, and costs, to get there.  So what's the alternative?  Maybe something more permanent, like a tunnel or legislation, is preferable.  Sure they both have up front costs, but at least you minimize the whipsaw effect (that is so hard on brakes and business planning).

RELATED POSTS:  The Supreme Court and the Environment: Who Did They Really Help?

                              COEUR ALASKA, INC. VS. SEACC: When Is A Lake Really a Landfill?

                              ENTERGY CORPORATION VS. RIVERKEEPER, INC.

                              Clean Water and Mountaintop Mining No Longer Mix

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For years now, environmentalists (and most Democrats) have been lauding the virtues of wind power and solar power as the answer to America’s clean energy problem while refusing to even consider the nuclear (or nucular, depending on your party) option. Never mind that the wind appears to be slowing down and solar energy companies are failing like all other businesses.

Honest discussion of nuclear power on the political front has been nonexistent. Lamar Alexander initiated his 100-new-nuclear-facilities-in-20-years campaign and was quickly relegated to crackpot-of-the-month status. Sometime shortly after August 23, 2009, that seems to have changed. 

On that morning, John McCain appeared on This Week. McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear energy but, since the presidential campaign, he has been fairly quiet on the topic. George Stephanopoulos asked him if nuclear energy should be considered as part of the energy solution. Mr. McCain’s response was that "we can't get there from here" without nuclear power and he added:

We have got to build 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 years. We can do that. Right now, the administration’s position is against storage and they’re against recycling of spent nuclear fuel. I can’t support a genuine reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, unless nuclear power is a key part of it.

There are a lot of Republicans that the Democrats can ignore, but John McCain isn't one of them.  As is true in most negotiations, it was not a good idea for Democrats (at the insistence of the most vocal environmentalists) to simple take nuclear power off the table.  So when McCain publicly advocated the need for a nuclear discussion, it would have been a mistake to continue to ignore the call.

And they didn’t.

Barbara Boxer, Chair of the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works, has now said “there will be a nuclear title in the bill.” She has not elaborated on the comment yet, but one should expect at least a serious discussion of the nuclear option in the near future. 

Nuclear power has a lot of problems, but so do the alternatives. There is no question that solar and wind power will be part of the discussion for a long time to come.  But taking any option off of the table, particularly to appease an extreme constituency, is a mistake for either party. And give credit where credit is due -- to McCain for his advocacy and to Boxer for listening. It isn’t exactly bi-partisanship at work, but at least it’s a dialog. Now if we can all just agree on how to pronounce it . . . .

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It seems to me that “An Inconvenient Truth” gave President Obama a “free pass” when it came to justifying legislation for climate change. That is, since the movie, there has been an assumption that Congresss must address climate change and all that is left is the details. Apparently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce didn’t see the movie. netrs5kvhi

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that EPA was required to consider whether greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from new motor vehicle engines contribute to climate change that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The Court gave EPA three options:

1)                  Find they do; or

2)                  Find they don’t; or

3)                  Give a reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to make the determination.

After reviewing 300,000 public comments and conducting two public hearings (not required by rule) to take additional testimony, EPA issued a proposed finding that six GHGs contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare and that  emissions of four GHGs from new motor vehicle engines are contributing to air pollution which is endangering public health and welfare.

The Chamber, recognizing that the finding will result in major (and costly) emission limits being imposed on new cars, has requested EPA to hold a public hearing to put "the science of climate change on trial.” In an extremely unfortunate turn of phrase (later retracted), William Kovacs, the Chamber’s Senior Vice President for Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs, said it would be the“Scopes monkey trial of the 21st Century.” (I say unfortunate because it allowed Carl Pope, President of Sierra Club, and others, the opportunity to attack Mr. Kovac’s credibility by pointing out that the Scopes monkey trial was an incredible abuse of the judicial process in that it suppressed science—exactly the opposite of what the Chamber contends it wants to do at an EPA hearing).

The Chamber has filed an 84-page Petition  and a 20-page supplemental filing in support of its request that there be a hearing on the EPA’s endangerment finding.  In the Petition, the Chamber admits that EPA is not legally required to conduct a hearing (footnote 119). Rather, the Chamber implores and cajoles (I’m understating) EPA to be “open and transparent” in the rulemaking process and, given the enormous gravity and expense of the finding, to conduct an adversarial hearing on the question.

The Chamber contends that EPA has failed to properly identify the scientific basis for findings that GHGs endanger the public health and welfare. In their words (p. 6 of 79):

[Our] comments focus on whether the scientific evidence developed and relied upon by EPA adequately “connects the dots” to the extent required by law to satisfy EPA’s purported test for endangerment -- that local action contributes to global pollution which then endangers local public health and welfare -- and kick off the regulatory cascade the Proposal almost surely will engender.

It is interesting to note that the Chamber acknowledges that EPA has shown that atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are increasing (p. 7 of 79) and that the EPA could find that GHGs are potentially causing climate change (p. 8 of 79). Their complaint is that EPA hasn’t shown the science to support a finding that the GHGs are hurting anyone.

The Chamber’s point is a classic (and valid) cost/benefit analysis argument: There should be an adequate (i.e. scientific) showing of harm before billions are spent to correct the perceived problem.

While the Chamber may have a point, it certainly has the wrong forum and even worse timing.

EPA has done everything required of it by Massachusetts v. EPA and the rulemaking procedures. It has received and reviewed over 300,000 comments and it has held two hearings that were not required by the rules. The Chamber, and everyone else in the country, has been able to submit comments as contemplated by rulemaking procedures. Apparently, the Chamber doesn’t like the comments that were relied upon by EPA or the conclusion being proposed. But that is the nature of rulemaking. If the Chamber believes that an adversarial process, with witnesses and an administrative law judge, should be required to make rules, it needs to go to Congress and get the process changed (remembering, of course, that next time it might be the Chamber’s ox that is Gored).

Filing a petition for an arguably unavailable proceeding, after the extensive comment review by EPA, was as ill-conceived as calling it the next Scopes monkey trial. The Chamber will have its opportunity to make a legal challenge in the future and it has already promised to do so. Filing an 84-page Petition, consumed mostly with comments designed to shame EPA into a hearing by saying that it hasn’t been transparent enough (though it has gone beyond the rulemaking requirements) does not help the cause of those who believe that the United States is about to embark on a very expensive experiment.

And as to a trial, should there be one in the future, I would suggest that the Chamber be careful what it asks for. If it is determined that:

1)                  GHGs are increasing; and

2)                  The increase in GHGs is causing climate change; and

3)                  There are methods available to reduce GHGs,

does the Chamber really think that it’s going to win over public opinion that nothing should be done?   Try as it might, the Chamber is not going to successfully relabel the movie "An Inconclusive Truth."  Too much time has passed with too many people being too afraid of the science they have heard.  In current jargon, the tipping point has come and gone.  Before it loses all credibility, the Chamber should address the extent to which Congress should act. That, I would suggest, is the real battlefield.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Dear Mr. President,

With all due respect, I feel that I must warn you that you are on the brink of losing one of your biggest support groups – wine drinkers. Allow me to explain.

Wine has always been one of my guilty pleasures -- and I'm not alone.  Wine consumption in the United States has been, and continues to be, on an extraordinary growth path.  That means an ever-increasing base of fairly myopic (and, at certain times of the day, malleable) voters.  For example, in 2008, a close friend of mine told me that he was a single issue voter: You promised to do something about global warming, so you got his vote.  This is because climate change is having a huge impact on grape growing and, therefore, wine making. 

My point is that all of this economic stimulus and health care talk is fine and good, but I don’t want you to take your eye off of the really important issue -- wine, . . . uh, I mean climate change. So here are a few facts to consider:

When it comes to identifying global warming, grape production is the canary in the coal mine. Very small temperature increases result in immediate, and large, changes in the ability to grow great grapes. For example:

•     In Australia:

--    Up to 1000 growers will be faced with the decision of ceasing operations due to increasingly hot harvests;

--    By 2050, 44% of current grape-grown areas are likely to be negatively affected by rising temperatures.

•     In France:

--    In 20 to 30 years, Burgundy, France, will be too warm to plant its classic-prized varietal, pinot noir (now I realize that it’s just pinot, but still);

--    Winemakers warn that failure to cut greenhouse gases will devastate their area;

--    A group of 50 winemakers predicted that vineyards will move 600 miles past their traditional boundaries by the end of the century if nothing is done now.

•      England is now able to produce prize-winning vintages thanks to the warming conditions (Mr. President, ENGLAND! Sure they’re our friends but they really can’t be trusted with cars or grapes).
•         In California, the Napa Valley will become as warm as Modesto. Modesto will become as warm as Stockton. Stockton will become as warm as Bakersfield (can cats and dogs raining down from the heavens be far behind?).

I know what you’re saying. Your saying that this just means that grape growing in Oregon and Washington will improve, but are there really enough votes to care what happens there?

Let me put it another way. Isn’t it at least possible that Sarah Palin has dropped out of the political scene because she sees what’s coming and is buying up prime Alaskan grape growing land? Do you really want to see Palin Insignia? Do you really want to be responsible for Sarah Palin becoming the replacement for the late, great Robert Mondavi as the American winemaking icon? I didn’t think so.

For my sake, your sake and Alaska’s sake, you must redouble your efforts to address climate change.

To be sure that my message is getting through, let me approach the issue from a more scientific angle. I’ve just completed some research on global warming. Between 1970 and 2008, the five-year mean temperature has drastically increased. In fact, the increase during this period is greater than the same increase for more than the previous 100 years.

Now, let’s take a look at what that has done to wine. Robert Parker (he is to wine what you are to Democratic politics) rates the quality of wine each year for all of the world’s wine producing areas. A year that scores 90 or higher is considered “Outstanding.” Looking at 90-point years for France (Pomerol), Italy (Piedmont - Barolo), California Cabernets, Oregon (Willamette Valley) and Washington Cabernets as reported by The Wine Advocate, we find:

Uh . . .wait a minute. Let me think about this.  During the period of extreme warming, the number of great wine vintages have actually increased, thanks to climate change. That means that, at least in the short term, warmer is better for grapes.  Sure, this can only go on for another 15 or 20 years, but at this rate that means another 12 to 15 spectacular wine vintages. I’ll have plenty of wine to last me through my waning years. True, I probably won’t be able to drink them outdoors, but that’s a sacrifice a truly dedicated oenophile is willing to make.   Hmmm . . .well . . . .in that case.

Mr. President, kindly disregard this letter.

                                                                                                      Whining No More,

                                                                                                                        Chuck Becker

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With a new sheriff in town, environmental change is a foregone conclusion. The only questions are how and when will change be made. Rules that are created to give effect to environmental statutes are where we can find the real heart and soul of environmental protection. Every modern-day president that has taken office has realized that he has a lot more power to quickly cause policy changes via rulemaking than through the ponderous process of legislation. As I have said before, President Obama is no exception and is already in the process of making significant changes to the environmental rules.

The only problem with the use of this power is that it does have some minimal safeguards in place – and apparently they were exceeded.

In April, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to remand and vacate the Stream Buffer Zone rule. This was an 11th-hour rule change made by President Bush which made it easier to discharge water taken from mountaintop removal into streams. Salazar decided that this was a bad public policy and, according to him, it did not pass the “smell test.”

In ruling on the question, the D.C. Circuit Court said that, as discerning as Mr. Salazar’s nose might be, there is a right way and a wrong way to remove the odor. And Mr. Salazar’s attempt was the wrong way. In the words of the Court:

Here, the federal defendants seek a remand and vacation of the SBZ Rule without a determination on the merits that the SBZ Rule is legally deficient.

The Court finds no precedent to support the proposition that it should reward and vacate the SBZ Rule under the circumstances presented here. Moreover, the National Mining Association has the better argument that granting the federal defendants’ motion would wrongfully permit the federal defendants to bypass established statutory procedures for repealing an agency rule. The Administrative Procedures Act requires government agencies to follow certain procedures, including providing for public notice and comment, before enacting or amending a rule. An agency must follow the same procedure in order to repeal the rule.                        

In other words: Sheriff, the law says you have to have a town meeting before you close the saloon, so have the town meeting before you close the saloon.

It seems unlikely that the requirement that there be notice and an opportunity to comment will change the outcome in any manner, other than to slow things down a bit. But telling the sheriff that the law also applies to him is probably a good reminder that there’s a difference between a sheriff and, say, a king.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Well, it has begun.

The posturing that one would expect before an important environmental conference like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen is in full swing.  To date, China and India have made it clear that they are not going to accept mandated targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Their arguments are:

• They are new to the industrial scene and they should have the same opportunity as the other industrialized nations (i.e. the United States) to pollute their way to prosperity;
• Their per capita emissions are, and will remain, well below those of the U.S.;
• Their "dirty" products are consumed primarily by industrialized nations so those nations should pay for the added costs of the emissions.

Politically speaking, these are pretty strong arguments.  The only real response is "Well, yes, but we're in a desperate situation and we need everybody to join in."  That response isn't very effective if you don't believe that global warming is in a "desperate situation" or, more importantly, you don't care. 

So what happens if China and India refuse to agree to any limits?  The practical impact is that if the industrialized nations agree to limits but China and India won't come along, then China and India will have the ability to sell their products cheaper than the U.S.  Jobs will shift  to those countries and imports of cheaper products will increase, while greenhouse gas emissions from China and India will presumably continue to increase. 

Since the U.S. has little power to push around the mountains that are China and India, we will need to look to what we can control -- tariffs on goods coming into the country (though the World Trade Organization could limit that control).  By adding tariffs to the products, we would discourage movement of jobs overseas and the importing of cheap products.  The tariffs could be adjusted as the country ramps up environmental compliance.  Once the country is in compliance with whatever environmental limits are agreed upon, we could eliminate the tariffs and all goods would be back on an even playing field.  Simple, right?  The only problem is that most countries get very upset when tariffs are imposed on their goods. 

China and India have been watching the Congressional climate change debates closely and saw the tariff issue coming.  They have been warning that tariffs are unacceptable.  Ten swing-vote Democrats are now posturing to require that the U.S. insist on full participation by all countries or the imposition of tariffs on the non-conforming countries.  If this is done, China and India may retaliate by imposing their own tariffs and we'll be off to the races.  Relatively smart people have come down on both sides of the issue.

So, like so many other things environmental, it comes down to money.  The new environmental question is likely to become, can we afford a trade war?  I don't have the answer but I remember the words of my father before our first camping trip (paraphrased slightly):  "If you are going to poke a bear with a stick, you'd better have a really good backup plan."  I told him, "I wouldn't poke the bear."  His reply, "That's a pretty good plan, got any others?"

RELATED POST: Environmental Legislation Won't Wait For China

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Mediation of legal disputes (as opposed to time-consuming and expensive trials) has been a great benefit to the justice system. In mediation, the parties voluntarily meet with a neutral third party who listens to both sides and then splits the parties up. The mediator shuttles between the parties and tries to broker a deal to end the dispute. The success rate is remarkably high.

I’ve had the opportunity to participate in many mediations and I have found that sometime early in the process, after the parties have been split up, you’ll inevitably hear the following finger-pointing exchange between one party and the mediator:

Party 1 (with a slight pout): “They are really bad people. They’re doing bad things and they need to be the first one to make an offer.”

Mediator: “Ok, I’ll go talk to them.” 

The mediator goes to the other party and hears: 

Party 2 (with an air of indignation): “These people are the real villains. Their demands are outrageous. We can’t possibly make any offer. Tell them to make a reasonable proposal.”

Mediator: “Ok, let me talk to them.”

This goes back and forth until one party finally realizes that making the first move isn’t the end of the world, and an offer is made, and then countered, and on it goes until a resolution is reached. That first offer can take five minutes or five hours. It doesn’t matter too much to the mediator – he/she is being paid by the hour. And the mediator knows something the other two parties don’t; that is, sooner or later, someone will make the first offer.

When it comes to international climate change action, China (and India) and the United States are at the beginning of the mediation. Everyone is finger pointing:

U.S.: “China is beginning to be a huge contributor to CO2 emissions. They must commit to a huge reduction."

China: “The U.S. has historically generated much more CO2 than China and has done nothing over the last eight years. The U.S. needs to make the commitment to change, and then we’ll see what we’ll do.”

U.S.: “We’re not going to pass climate change legislation until China does."

China: “ We won’t move.”

Let me shorten this mediation by about four hours by making a suggestion – United States, pass your legislation. Be the first to make the offer. Keep the pressure on China (consider trade policy, for example), but take the lead.  You're just wasting a lot of effort if you insist that China take action at the same time. 

Further, though it certainly has significant environmental problems, it isn’t as though China is just sitting on its 2.6 billion hands. Pop quiz: As between the U.S. and China, which country:

• Committed to reduce the energy intensity of its economy – energy used per dollar of goods produced – by 20% in five years?
• Will increase its total installed capacity for solar power 75 times in just over ten years?
• Plans to install 100 million energy-efficient light bulbs in 2009?
• Has committed $462 billion to scaling up renewable energy by 2020?
• Has increased wind power by 100% in each of the last four years?
• Is the world’s top producer of solar photovoltaic panels?
• Has the more stringent automotive fuel economy standards?
• Invested $12 billion in renewable energy in 2009, placing it second in the world in absolute dollars spent, just behind Germany?
• In 2009 will be the largest installer of wind power.

The correct answer to each question is China. I’ve graded the quiz. The West Coast did well and the Midwest was great but you people on the East Coast, particularly the D.C. area, failed miserably.

My point is that if the U.S. goes first, it won’t be the end of the world. (I won’t pull an Al Gore and say that if we don’t go first, it will be the end of the world. I wouldn’t do that.) Whether its cap and trade, nuclear, or something more creative, legislation is going to happen.  I'm not saying that that is good or bad, just that the genie is out of that bottle.  Insisting that China must act benefits no one – unless you’re being paid by the hour.

RELATED POST:  Tariffs and the Environment: Are We Ready For a Trade War?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Three months ago I said that cost-benefit analysis was at the heart of the environmental debate between Republicans and Democrats. Two months ago I said that the United States Supreme Court granting unfettered discretion to EPA to define the applicability and scope of cost-benefit analysis was an extraordinary gift to our new EPA administrator. Three days ago I said that we could expect this administration to make wholesale revisions to the administrative rules and guidelines governing regulation of the environment.

So what happens?  EPA begins to modify the guidelines it uses to undertake cost-benefit analysis when analyzing environmental regulations. The best description I’ve seen is by Michael Livermore. He writes:

The Guidelines [for Preparing Economic Analysis] is little known outside of EPA, but used regularly by the agency to design every major environmental regulation. Before any rule is adopted, it must go through an economic analysis according to the Guidelines . . . .

The draft changes to the Guidelines are under discussion now and will hopefully be adopted this fall. These revisions would create a major shift in the status quo at EPA.

I have to agree with Michael when he says it will create a major shift in the status quo. He argues that that shift will be a good thing for environmental regulation. While I don’t agree with this conclusion, I do think it is very interesting, and telling, that this EPA is acting so quickly to change even the most fundamental rules governing environmental regulation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have read, with interest, several posts that describe the most recently concluded United States Supreme Court term as being a miserable year   for environmental interests. The authors point out that of the five cases addressing the environment, all of them resulted in reversals of decisions that had favored environmentalists. Based on this scorecard, the posts are quick to label the majority of members of this Supreme Court as being hostile to the environment and pro-business. Glenn Sugameli, an attorney with the environmental group Earth Justice, went so far as to say that he believes that the Court put on “pro-business blinders.”
 

While the outcome of the cases certainly did not advance environmental interests, I find it difficult to refer to the outcomes as pro-business. In fact, in three of the cases, the Court deprived the business community of what it needs most.
 

Businesses necessarily rely upon predictability. They need to know, to the greatest extent possible, that the rules of the game are not going to constantly shift. They need to know that government will not make major changes in the regulatory scheme and that they can plan future  purchases, hiring, markets, expansion and the like on rules that are not subject to daily variation. This is critical in the area of environmental regulation where a change in the rules can shift millions of dollars in costs. Business owners understand that there will always be some changes, but they expect it to occur through a cumbersome and combative process (a/k/a Congress). In short, they hope for some level of stability. By this measure, the Supreme Court did not do business a favor during this term.
 

In my previous post relating to Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., I noted that the end result was that the Court has now accorded broad deference to EPA to determine when and where the agency will employ the use of a cost-benefit analysis. In a similar vein, I noted that in the Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. SEACC case, the Court deferred to EPA’s interpretation as found in an unpublished memorandum authored by the Director of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.  In both of these cases, the Supreme Court was making it clear that EPA can change the rules as it sees fit and without public comment.  In several articles written about the Coeur Alaska case, the comment was made that, although the environmentalists lost that case, there would be an easy fix by asking the present administration to take action (presumably without the need for public comment) to repeal the interpretation of the rule that allowed the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Coeur Alaska.  

In Winter v. NRDC, Inc., the Court ruled that the needs and prior practices of the Department of the Navy should receive deference. As in Entergy and Coeur Alaska, this case resulted in substantially strengthening the hand of the governmental entity.
 

Though it is an admittedly small sample, I believe that the best way to label this Court is pro-government when it comes to environmental questions. Given the complexities of environmental regulation, I can’t say that I’m surprised at the rulings which, in effect, simply defer to the expertise of the agency.  What does surprise me is that the Roberts Supreme Court believes that making federal agencies more powerful and less accountable is a good result.
 

Moreover, the impact on many types of businesses is likely going to be significant in light of the political climate. It is an understatement to say that the Obama  administration’s view of environmental regulation is significantly different  from the view held by the Bush administration. With this Court’s seal of approval, changes in EPA regulations, guidance documents and unpublished memos are going to come fast and furious. If anyone really believes that it is “pro-business” for the Supreme Court to tell EPA that it has discretion to change the rules whenever it desires and without notice or public comment, I would question their definition.
 

I believe I can safely guarantee that a change in the presidency, like death and taxes, is a certainty at some time in the future. When that happens, the rules will change yet again. And for business, the lack of certainty, or at least relative stability, is anything but “pro-business.”
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a result of a previous post regarding the misguided attempts by several cities to ban plastic bags at grocery stores, I got called to task by a concerned reader.  If you think you're so smart, how do you get rid of the plastic and paper bags? 

I'm supposed to complain AND come up with a solution?  That seems pretty demanding.  On the other hand, it's a fair question that deserves at least an attempt at a response.  So, how might we do that?

Since, as a practical matter, groceries will need to be sacked, there is only one way to eliminate the bag as a waste -- be sure the bag is reusable.  That's not a shocker, but getting there is the trick.  To do that, we need to somehow convince the shopper that using the bag over and over is to their advantage in some way.  The history of environmental regulation has shown that there are essentially two methods of "encouraging" reuse: 1) hit the public’s conscience or 2) hit their pocket book.

APPEALING TO CONSCIENCE

Under the guilt approach, you explain how much damage is being done to the environment by paper and plastic bags and hope that the public starts to bring their own bags for sacking. When you look at the statistics on the costs of creating paper and plastic bags, it's an easy case to make. The only problem with this is that it doesn’t work.   Most people have heard some version of the statistics, yet today only a small number of individuals at mainstream grocery stores bring reusable bags. If you can’t get those shoppers to do it, it isn't going to have any real impact.

You could help this philosophy along, however, by simply banning all bags at grocery stores. That would then force the buyer to bring a sack or, as in the case of Sam’s Club, hope that there is a spare box (that you then throw out at home).  Maybe the stores could hire young high school men and women to become grocery “carriers” instead of grocery “sackers” to take the groceries to the cars. That way the store owners wouldn’t hear the customers swearing as they carried the groceries, load by load, to the kitchen.  

You will have to judge for yourself, but I doubt that a total ban would work. If an individual store implemented it, the loss of business would likely force them back to bags. To avoid this, a city would need to be sure that every store followed the rule, but if there was a city-wide ban imposed, I would guess that, whenever possible, a lot of people would shop at the next closest city.  Although it would be a bold move, I haven't found any city that has considered a total bag ban.

APPEALING TO THE POCKETBOOK

The more likely solution is the pay-as-you-throw option.  That is, if you use a throw-away bag, you pay for the cost of the toss, not just the cost of production.

The simplest method is to just charge everyone a nickel for each bag. This should encourage re-use.  New York  has considered this.  The difficulty with this solution is that it sounds like a tax, which is a political lightning rod.  Also, unless the cost is high, I don't think it would be effective.  If your grocery bill is $50 or $100, most people would be willing to pay the extra 40¢ or 50¢ rather than change their behavior and, if that is the case, there’s no reduction in the waste stream.  If you want to change behavior, you need to get smarter than that.

For example, you could do what a some states do with beverage cans. You could charge, say, 5¢ per bag and return the nickel if they return the bag. While consumers may be willing to pay the 5¢ with no chance of getting it back, they don't seem to be as willing to throw it away. I'm sure that there is a psychological name for this, but I like to think of it as the PAF (people are frugal) effect.  You can almost always count on it. 

Once the bags were returned, they could be recycled. If they weren’t returned, the nickel would go to the landfill.  It's hard for the consumer to argue with it because they are getting their money back (with a little effort).  The biggest objectors would be the grocery stores, so they would likely need to get something for their effort, as is currently done with the can deposit.  This solution has the added incentive that, just like with beverage cans, enterprising youths and adults would search out discarded bags and return them for the nickel. You wouldn’t see many bags blowing around the neighborhood.  It isn’t a perfect solution, but it might work.

An interesting variation would be to simply charge $1 per bag and all bags would be those recyclable, hemp ones that we are now seeing at most stores. You know, the ones that drive you crazy because you remember that you have ten of them stored in your trunk just as the cashier says: “Paper or plastic?” The difference here would be that if you forget to bring your recycled bags, you would get to buy another three or four for your collection at $1 each. At $1 a bag, the PAF effect is really going to kick in. My guess is that after someone accumulates 15 or 20 of those bags, forgetting the bags will be a thing of the past.  (While I'm on it, would it be so hard for grocery stores to post "Don't Forget Your Bags" signs throughout the parking lot?)

Maybe none of these suggestions will work, but they're a start.  I leave the rest to the city council members -- that's why they're paid the big bucks.

RELATED POST: Sure Plastic Bags Are Better, But Is That The Real Question?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In its final environmental ruling for this term, the United States Supreme Court went up against the fishes.  The fishes lost.

In Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the plaintiff mining company sought to pipe a slurry of 210,000 gallons of process wastewater and 1,440 tons of tailings each day to the bottom of Lower Slate Lake. The parties to the litigation agreed that the activities would fill the lake with solids and destroy all aquatic life. Upon conclusion of the mining operations, Coeur Alaska proposed to cap the tailings with four inches of native material and restore and expand the lake.

Since the lake was a water of the United States, Coeur Alaska needed a permit to discharge the slurry. The difficulty here was that the Clean Water Act provides for two distinct methods of getting a discharge permit. Under Section 404 of the Act, the Corp of Engineers can issue permits for discharge of “fill material," with EPA having the right to veto. Fill material is defined to be any material "that has the effect of . . . [c]hanging the bottom elevation of water."  For discharges of anything other than fill, Section 402 of the CWA requires EPA to issue permits pursuant to the effluent limitations of the Act. 

As one might imagine, EPA and the Corps occasionally disagree on who has jurisdiction, and such was the case with mining tailings.  In 2002, the Corps and EPA promulgated a regulation that defined fill material to include “tailing or similar mining-related materials.”  Still, the regulation failed to identify whether the fill material, that was subject to the Corps jurisdiction, needed to meet performance standards.

In a 2004 internal memorandum written by Diana Regas, the Director of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds during the Bush administration, Ms. Regas declared that EPA’s performance standards did not apply to discharges of fill material.

Based on this information, Coeur Alaska sought a discharge permit from the Corps of Engineers rather than EPA. The Corps determined that any environmental damage would be temporary and issued the permit. SEACC challenged the Corps decision and won at the 9th Circuit, but lost before the Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision, the High Court held that the terms of the CWA were ambiguous. The Court said:

Because Congress has not “directly spoken” to the “precise question” of whether an EPA performance standard applies to discharges of fill material, the statute alone does not resolve the case.

Since the statute did not provide the answer, the Court attempted to determine congressional intent.  However, they found another road block in that there was no such indicia.  Next, the Court looked to agency regulation, but found it to be ambiguous. Stepping down one more rung, the Court looked to the subsequent interpretation of the regulation by EPA and found Ms. Regas' internal EPA memo that the performance standards do not apply to fill material.  The Court declared that the memo did not satisfy the Court's previous ruling in Chevron v. NRDC on what can be accorded deference by a court, but went on to say: 

The Memorandum presents a reasonable interpretation of the regulatory regime. We defer to the interpretation because it is not “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation[s].”

With that, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit and allowed Lower Slate Lake (presumably to be renamed Much Higher Slate Lake in the near future) to be filled with the slurry.

It must be said that this Court searches very hard for guidance. On the central question of whether performance standards apply to discharges of fill material, they found that:

• The statute had not “directly spoken” to the “precise question;”
• There was no indicia of Congressional intent;
• Agency regulations were ambiguous; and
• One internal agency memo, that had not been subject to public comment and which did not meet the Court’s previous cases to merit deference, was sufficient to justify the discharge.

That is one heck of a memo. For all those low level staffers and department heads who think that no one reads anything that they put in their reports, Ms. Regas would beg to differ. Those memos can have some real clout.

I would note that the oral arguments, as well as references in the opinion, indicated that several members of the Court were consoled by the fact that EPA had veto power and it did not exercise it in this case. If EPA didn’t see the need to veto it, why should the Court?  I suppose there are any number of ways to answer that question. Suffice it to say that a majority of this Supreme Court, reviewing a Bush-era EPA decision, felt that the answer was that it shouldn’t.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bipartisan environmental legislation has long been an oxymoron.  This isn't surprising considering how the parties approach the issues.  However, I think it is safe to say that competition knows no political party. That is, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we all want to win. Since a competitive spirit is a bipartisan concept, why couldn’t Congress learn to use it to its advantage?

I put this question out there because of a recent post in the Wall Street Journal, “Vroom per Gallon: Toyota Prius vs. VW Clean Diesel.” It is an interesting piece about the relative merits of the Toyota Prius and the VW Jetta TDI Clean Diesel. When I finished the article, I was unimpressed with either car (no matter how you paint boring, it’s still boring), but one comment made by the author, Ana Campoy, did catch my attention. Ana said that the Prius has a monitor that tracks energy use and “makes a game out of getting the highest mileage.” She noted that she watches the diagram whenever she drives and that she and her husband have been “trying to beat our personal best for months: an average of 49 MPG.”  She called it the Prius Effect.

I got to thinking about those statements and I realized that she was right. Not too long ago I bought a car that has the ability to monitor the mileage, and now I do so on a constant basis.   Until I bought that car, the concept of miles per gallon was purely theoretical. Certainly I wanted to save gallons because it meant saving money. Did I really change my driving habits to do so? Not for a minute.  But put a gauge in front of me that can be manipulated to go to a higher number if I’m really “good” at driving, and suddenly I’m all about winning . . . uh, I mean, economy. I think you would be too. And more importantly, I think you would be whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.

I should note that, perhaps not surprisingly, my attention to the gauge has made a difference.  After six months, my average has gone up 2 mpg.  Obviously, if that had been a change from 46 to 48 mpg it would have been more impressive than, say, 17 to 19 mpg.  Still, as far as the environment is concerned, the relative change is significant. Multiply this by a few million cars and you've put a big dent in the air pollution problem. 

The age old maxim “out of sight, out of mind,” is one that our elected representatives should consider. If they want to increase car mileage, which depends to a significant degree on driving habits, then don’t hide the information where it is out of sight.  Maybe Congress could interfere a lot less, and still do a lot more, if it considered passing a law that required these kind of monitors.  Why not harness that competitive spirit that knows no party line?

I’ll let someone else crunch the numbers, but I would guess that a fairly modest expense could result in a substantial increase in actual miles per gallon without getting into the political mess of this trading caps thing.  I can just see the new slogan at General Motors -- GM: You Can Watch The Savings!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently received a poll asking me what I thought was the most important environmental case that ever came out of the United States Supreme Court. About thirty cases were listed, but my pick wasn’t anywhere among them.  My write-in vote?   Bush v. Gore.

You remember the Bush case. It was about that pesky election in 2000 where we just couldn't make up our minds.  The country was learning that more than just the weather can get hot in Florida. Eventually, the Supreme Court came to the rescue and found, by a 5-4 vote, that enough of that silly counting had been done, and that Mr. Gore had missed it by just that much (actually it was by .0092%).

As is the winner's prerogative, the new president and empowered Congress began to apply Republican ideals to environmental regulation. Not surprisingly, the beneficiaries of this action were environmental interest groups, who did not find it difficult to argue that Republican politics were isolationist, dangerous and destructive. For eight years, George W. Bush, and a Republican Congress, would swell the ranks of environmental groups across the country. All because of one vote from Robstown, Texas.

But the importance of Bush v. Gore didn’t just rest with an increase in environmental group participation. After all, that phenomenon has displayed itself during every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan.

No, the real importance of Bush v. Gore was that it put Al Gore out of a job. 

Just think about it.  Eight years as vice-president -- prime of life -- more than half the country voted for him and then . . . poof . . . gone.

Outward appearances were that Mr. Gore sat around for a while and then began to work up an idea that would later be know as “An Inconvenient Truth.” Had Mr. Gore prevailed in the election, he would have spent eight years of fits and starts trying to get Republicans in Congress to consider that global warming might exist. Maybe he would have been able to advance an environmental agenda . . . but I doubt it. At least until the mid-term election of 2006, he would have been lucky to sign a bill that had the word “environment” in it. But it doesn’t really matter because, in the end, he lost.

So eight years sooner than would otherwise be the case, we get “An Inconvenient Truth.”

I make this observation because the history of environmental regulation in the United States has been substantially aided by events that raised public fear levels: Cuyahoga River Fire, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Bhopal and Exxon Valdez , for example. When these kinds of events happen, the public reacts and when the (voting) public reacts, politicians tend to listen. That’s what “An Inconvenient Truth” did -- it scared a lot of people. In one fell swoop, the debate over the scientific basis for global warming was essentially over. Right or wrong, it was over and all that was left was to pass a law to do something about it.
 

The timing couldn’t have been better. Barack Obama is elected, successfully bypasses any serious debate on global warming, and, in six months, goes straight to a cap-and-trade proposal. I would suggest that this would not have been possible without the heavy lifting having already been done by the movie.

Further, I think that "An Inconvenient Truth" will be a catalyst for change in multiple areas of environmental regulation. Obviously air regulation, CO2 emissions and global warming are directly affected, but concerns about water, hazardous waste releases and natural resource destruction will also be impacted. It was, after all, a very scary movie. Not in the Freddy Krueger sort of way but more in that Indiana-Jones, Arc-of-the-Covenant, flesh-melting-because-you’ve-loosed-the-demons-of-hell sort of way.

Certainly it can be said that many Supreme Court cases have resulted in important environmental decrees on one topic or another.  But Bush v. Gore, rather than deciding a particular point of environmental law, started the chain of events that led to a major change in environmental activism.  Now that is a significant environmental law case.

(And you thought it was just about hanging chads).

Related Post:  Monkeys and Science, Part Deux: Putting Climate Change On Trial
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I find myself at a loss for words -- not a good condition for a blogger.

E-Justice, a very informative blog on a broad range of topics, has just put out their list of 50 Best Blogs About Environmental Law and included this site. Thanks for putting me in with such an outstanding group.

And for those of you who are interested in environmental issues (and you must be or you wouldn't have gotten this far), check out all of the other sites listed by e-Justice. They are by people who know what they are talking about and know how to say it. You won't always agree with the posts, but you'll learn a lot. I know I have.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I mentioned earlier that an important finding in Entergy v. Riverkeeper  was that EPA can now decide when it will use cost-benefit analysis in environmental regulation (unless "categorically prohibited"), the standard to be applied to that analysis (strict or loose) and that it may change that standard without notice.  I thought that the ruling was significant in that it put the power to use (and to quickly change the standard for) cost-benefit analysis firmly in the hands of the EPA Administrator, with all the political nuances therein.  Fearing that mine might be a somewhat cynical take on the decision, I thought it might be a good idea to seek a second opinion -- what did the losers think of the ruling?

The New York Times reported that Alex Matthiessen, the president of Riverkeeper, said:

We are disappointed, of course, that the court did not affirm the lower court's judgment in it its entirety, but nonetheless pleased that the court agreed that EPA is not required to use cost-benefit analysis and left it up to EPA on remand to decide to what extent, if any, cost-benefit analysis should be used in regulating cooling water intake structures.  We are looking forward to working with EPA's new administrator, whom we are confident will agree that the Bush EPA regulations failed to satisfy the Clean Water Act's mandate that the adverse environmental impacts of cooling water intake structures be minimized.

Since EPA has not commented on the ruling, one might wonder why Mr. Matthiessen is so "confident."  It is likely that it has something to do with the fact that Lisa Jackson has a new job.  Ms. Jackson, formerly head of the New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, is now the Administrator of EPA.  New Jersey was one of six states that joined in the Entergy case -- in support of Riverkeeper.

Ms. Jackson has excellent credentials and I have no doubt that she will be a great administrator of an Agency that is going to be very busy for four or more years.  It must be helpful for her to know that on something as fundamental as the use of cost-benefit analysis, it's pretty much up to her as to when, and to what degree, it will be applied.                               

Sometimes it's funny how things work out.                            

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Chalk this one up to old dogs and new tricks.

In a previous post, I discussed the politics of environmental law and the fact that, as a general matter, the Republican philosophy of environmental law is to consider costs versus benefits while the Democratic approach places considerably more emphasis on protecting the environment and much less on the cost of doing so. In many ways, this is at the heart of the differences between the parties when it comes to environmental regulation.

Since 1995, however, this difference hasn’t been very heavily debated because Republicans controlled Congress and, for the last eight years, the White House. During that time, EPA’s use of cost-benefit analysis has been fairly consistent. Not surprisingly, with a new sheriff in town (Democratic President and Democratic Congress), it has quickly become apparent that there will be significant changes in all aspects of environmental regulation. But given EPA’s historical use of cost-benefit analysis, how can it go about changing its tune? Let me ask it another way: If the President and this Congress want to make a change in environmental enforcement so that cost-benefit analysis plays a significantly reduced role, will it be like turning a barge or a speedboat? In light of the Entergy Corp. case, my guess is the latter.

In Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of cost-benefit analysis in environmental regulation. Those who work in the area of the Clean Water Act are well aware of the five statutory standards found throughout the Act which are applicable to various situations. Those five standards are: 1) BTA (Best Technology Available); 2) BPT (Best Practicable Technology); 3) BATEA (Best Available Technology Economically Achievable); 4) BADT (Best Available Demonstrated Technology); 5) BCT (Best Control Technology). (I’ve always been consoled by the fact that each and every one of these standards is the “best”). If you did not have all of these committed to memory, don’t be embarrassed. The Court actually found it necessary to add an appendix to its opinion which set out the definition of the terms.

In the case, the Court was confronted with the question of whether the use of the BTA standard should include a balancing of costs against benefits. After conducting an analysis of the statutory language, the Court finally found that the choice is up to EPA. The Court could not identify any prohibition against EPA including a cost-benefit analysis in setting health and safety standards under BTA if it chose to do so. In the words of the Court:

 [I]t was well within the bounds of reasonable interpretation for the EPA  to  conclude that cost-benefit analysis is not categorically forbidden.

The Court then went on to look at what the EPA’s BTA standard actually was and determined that, historically, EPA had employed the standard that technology would not be required if the cost was “wholly disproportionate to the environmental benefit to be gained.” However, the standard employed in the case at bar was that the changes would not be required if the costs of compliance were “significantly greater than” the benefits of complying with the applicable performance standards. In discussing the change in terminology by EPA between these two standards, the Court said:

While the EPA’s prior “wholly disproportionate” standard may be somewhat different from its current “significantly greater than” standard, there is nothing in the statute that would indicate that the former is a permissible interpretation while the latter is not.

Maybe it’s been a slow month, but I find these statements very interesting. First, the Court found that use of the cost-benefit analysis is permitted because it isn’t “categorically forbidden.” Then the Court recognized that EPA has changed its standard, but approved the use of either one.

The partial concurrence and dissent by Justice Breyer took the Court to task. He agreed that the EPA could include a cost-benefit component but he felt that if EPA was employing a new and different test, it was incumbent on EPA to adequately explain why it had changed its standard. Since it had not done so, Justice Breyer would have ordered a remand to EPA so that EPA could either apply the traditional “wholly disproportionate” standard or provide an adequately reasoned explanation for the change.

It seems to me that Justice Breyer has a point. If EPA is going to change its standards (which could be change that would be either looser or tighter) from what it has been using for the past 5 or 10 years, maybe it should be required to explain itself. Maybe applying a particular standard on a business is tough enough without the possibility of that standard changing each time there is a change in the administration and/or the head of EPA. Maybe there is something to be said for consistent application of the environmental laws so that business can at least plan and prepare. Naaah...said the United States Supreme Court.

In my mind, the significant holding of the Entergy Corporation case is that on something as fundamental as the use and proper application of cost-benefit analysis, EPA has discretion to employ that analysis (unless categorically prohibited) and EPA (read that to be each new EPA administrator) can modify that standard with impunity and without notice. While the decision certainly allows an agency, in this case EPA, to quickly adjust to new political realities, it wreaks havoc with business planning.

I started this post by referencing the old-dog-new-tricks maxim. However, I would like it understood that I am certainly not calling EPA an old dog. All I'm trying to say is that EPA’s ability to change its standards without notice does seem to be a new trick . . . and that it’s a shame that the majority of the Court didn’t require EPA to notice up and justify the change before it bit someone with it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The 1970s were the glory days for disco and environmental legislation. More than 70% of all of the current federal statutes were passed during that decade. The passage of new laws has slowed down since then, but if a business is to be successful, it needs to at least attempt to predict the environmental future. I thought it might be interesting to speculate on what the politicians are likely to do over the next four years.

Let me start by setting out the Democratic line. Democrats believe that everyone has an obligation to be a good steward of the land and pass it on to our children in at least as good a shape as it was received; that no environmental risk is acceptable; that expense should not be a consideration; that we have done so much damage to the environment that it is now a question of survival; and that anyone who does not believe that we should do whatever it takes to protect the environment is un-American. As in all things political, there are varying degrees of conviction on these points, but you get the idea. It’s a belief that the environment must be protected at all costs (literally). It is a compelling argument.

Now, the Republicans. Republicans believe that the environment must be protected but that it is one, of many, issues to be addressed; that funds are limited and that tough choices must be made to address health, education and defense considerations; that it isn’t unreasonable to require some sort of scientific support before throwing billions of dollars at a perceived problem; and that those who refuse to consider the whole picture are un-American. It is a firm belief that given limited dollars, it is appropriate and necessary to weigh the costs against the benefits when considering environmental regulation. It, too, is a compelling argument.

What does this mean to businesses? It means that when you have a Republican Congress or legislature, environmental regulation is going to have a lot of phrases like “risk-based-corrective-action,” “cost/benefit analysis,” and “scientific validation.” There will be relatively few criminal actions and new environmental regulation will be slow. With a Democratic Congress or legislature, you’ll hear about “no acceptable risk,” “compliance at any cost,” and “stewards of the land.” Watch for increased criminal prosecution and a lot more newspaper headlines about pending legislation.
 
Both political parties have well staked out positions.  For the past eight years, however, environmental regulations and enforcement, when discussed at all, has been about “balancing” and “risk analysis.” For the foreseeable future the rhetoric, and there will be a lot of it, is going to be about “protecting our children’s health” and “strong environmental leadership.” I don’t think business is really prepared for the change that’s coming on both the federal and state levels with regard to environmental enforcement. Like it or not, it’s probably going to look a lot like the 70s (but with better music).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since 1996, Superfund has not really been a “fund.” From 1980 to 1996, the Superfund program levied taxes on petroleum and chemical companies and on corporate profits for its operational costs, but Congress failed to reauthorize it in 1995, and by 2003 the fund was fundless. It looks like that’s going to change.

President Obama’s 2010 budget calls for reinstatement of the tax to support the Fund to the tune of $17.2 billion from 2011 through 2019. Also, $600 million of the stimulus package is to go to the Superfund program.

The interesting question here is not whether or not the tax will pass, but how will the money get spent. During the sixteen years that Superfund was funded, less than half of the fund was used to do any cleaning of the environment. For example, in 1996, of the $1.4 billion spent by Superfund, only $614 million (44%) was actually used for cleanups. The remaining funds were used to oversee the cleanups and to administratively and legally chase “potentially responsible parties” (that wonderfully contradictory phrase that is at the heart of Superfund liability).

If we’re going to do this again, someone needs to ask the question of whether significantly more of the funds should be used to actually clean the environment rather than spending the money on chasing the parties who, after several years of administrative and legal appeals, may or may not have the money to pay for the cleanup.

It’s just a thought.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I was recently asked why it is that the federal government has had such a love affair with environmental regulation over the past 40 or 50 years.  I think I know the answer -- deception. 

When Cleveland's Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1969, things started to happen.  Since that time, environmental awareness has gone from relative obscurity to being one of the top ten issues of the day. Certainly some of this change was caused by environmental interest groups like Sierra Club and Greenpeace, but if the environment had depended only on these types of groups, people would still be dumping used oil in the backyard. The real push for environmental reform came on the political front—the dozens of federal and state statutes and the thousands of pages of regulation that were created between 1970 and today.

But why weren’t the interest groups enough? Why did we end up with environmental regulation that rivals the bankruptcy and tax codes in complexity and sheer volume? Isn’t the environment above politics? Why doesn’t everyone simply demand and support a clean environment? It’s because people don't always tell the truth.

Over several decades you have seen the opinion polls consistently report that 70% to 80% of the people support a clean environment. Only love for mom and apple pie poll higher.  When you compare the poll results, however, with the sales of environmentally friendly products and the willingness to pay more in taxes or fees to accomplish that goal, you quickly determine that someone has been . . . uh . . . fibbing. The poll question that was actually being answered was: “If someone other than you is required to pay for it, would you give your wholehearted support to a clean environment?”

Still, if you look around today, there are dozens of environmental statutes in place.   That was a result of a few political leaders in the 1970s being convinced that a need for a cleaner environment existed but that the private sector could not accomplish it because of the huge costs involved.  In short, it was an issue that they viewed to be perfectly suited to federal, and at a later stage state, regulation.

My point is that a clean environment is extremely expensive and most people want others to pay for it. If this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t need to be told how and when and in what form we need to do something as obvious as keeping the planet clean. It is the huge costs of compliance coupled with the unwillingness of individuals to pay those costs that has made, and will continue to make, environmental regulation and politics great bedfellows.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link