Law and the Environment

EPA Issues Finding That Lays Foundation for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act

In a long expected finding, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a regulatory decision that lays the foundation for EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).  The decision announced on Friday, April 17, 2009 is entitled Proposed Endangerment Finding and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases  and was published in the Federal Register.  This is a major step by the Obama Administration to attempt to force Congress to pass a climate change bill regulating greenhouse gases.  Time magazine may have said it best in an article entitle EPA's CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress's Head.  Whilee it was known that EPA was working on and would announce the finding, the actual announcement has gained enormous coverage in the media and serves as the Administration's opening salvo in its ultimate work to try to convince enough senators to vote for a bill to get beyond the 60 votes need to bypass a filibuster.

The EPA regulatory decision follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision two years ago that concluded the EPA under the Bush Administration had failed to articulate why greenhouse gases should not be regulated as emissions from automobiles.  In so doing, the Court indicated that greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  Now that EPA is going to issue a final regulatory decision after 60 days of public comment and several public hearings, it is clear that EPA can, and will, take action absent Congressional action.

Regulation under the Clean Air Act is messy and may not include a cap and trade program, but simple command and control in the form of emission reductions without the ability to trade for other facility allowances or domestic or international offsets.  This would not be good for industry.

Certain industry groups have already begun to work to promote their version of a cap and trade program.  The group USCAP, which stands for United States Climate Action Partnership, has issued a document entitled A Blueprint for Legislative Action, providing a general outline of a climate change program based on cap and trade.

The one question that will likely play out is how the world will look if Congress does not pass a bill or passes late next year or even later.  Permits for coal=fired power plants and other greenhouse gas-emitting facilities are already being challenged, and environmental groups and other plaintiffs are challenging the permits in court as not meeting CAA requirements to address all pollutants including greenhouse gases.  If EPA issues a final decision that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant, do these cases then have a much greater change of success?  Will EPA and the states be required to address greenhouse gas emissions in federal Title V permits?  These are the types of questions that will come to the fore relatively quickly.

What about cement kilns, lime plants, refineries, natural gas processing plants, manufacturing plants, will they be challenged as well?  Coal-fired power plants may not be the only plants whose permits are challenged.

One need not look beyond the administrative case of In re Deseret Power Cooperative.  This was a case in which the permit for a power plant in Utah that was challenged because the plant permit did not address CO2 emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the CAA. the challengers argued the plant should implement the Best Available Control Technology or "BACT" to achieve greenhouse gas, largely CO2 emissions. 

The EPA Appeals Board remanded the issue back to the EPA, then under the Bush Administration, not to require such technology or reductions as the Appeals Board concluded that the decision was not supported by the administrative record.  The Appeals Board called on EPA to address the issue of CO2 and other greenhouse gases being pollutants governed by the CAA.

Other cases have been brought against various sources and several petitions have been filed with the EPA to regulate mobile sources and stationary sources.

With the finding by EPA, all such permits, petitions, and proceedings could be affected.  Could this be a snowball effect with EPA and states finding themselves forced to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before Congress makes any final decisions whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions?  The next year promises to be a challenging time for industry as they face a great deal of uncertainty as to how greenhouse gases will be regulated and how individual facilities and companies will be affected.  It appears more likely that some form of greenhouse gas regulation will be required.  For those companies that may be affected, it is time to develop a corporate strategy to address the risks and any opportunities that greenhouse gas regulation may bring.

Thompson & Knight Attorney Publishes Article on Climate Risk Disclosure

Texas- "Earlier this month, Xcel Energy entered into a settlement with the state of New York as a result of an investigation of several publicly traded utility companies with coal-fired power plants," according to Thompson & Knight Environmental Partner Scott D. Deatherage. His article "Climate Risk Disclosure: Xcel Raises Questions" was published in the September 17, 2008 editions of Energy Law360 and Environmental Law360.

According to the article, "the attorney general's office alleged that Xcel and four other named utilities - AES Corporation, Dominion Resources, Dynegy, and Peabody Energy - had failed to properly disclose climate risk in the companies' public filings." Deatherage says the settlement raises important questions, including "to what extent should publicly traded utilities that operate coal-fired power plants consider the Xcel settlement as appropriate precedent for future disclosure in SEC filings?" and "to what extent does the settlement reflect further pressure or liability on operators of existing or proposed coal-fired power plants?" He concludes, "the combined actions of environmental groups, certain state governments, and public pension and other public funds to influence the behavior of corporate America, and ultimately the legal and legislative process, may prove to be one of the broadest and most effective such campaigns ever witnessed."

Georgia State Court Rejects Air Permit for Coal-Fired Power Plant for Lack of Regulation of Carbon Dioxide

On June 30, 2008,  the Fulton County Superior Court in Georgia revoked a permit for construction of a proposed 1200-megawatt coal-fired power plant in the state.  The court truled that the permit issued to Longleaf Energy by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division failed to consider the best available pollution control technology (BACT) for reducing the proposed plant’s estimated annual emissions of 8-9 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).  The defense had argued that a BACT analysis was not required because CO2 is not a pollutant subject to regulation under the federal Clean Air Act. The court found that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the Court found that CO2 met the definition of pollutant under the Act.  The ruling by the Georgia court appears to be the first time a court has rejected an air emissions permit as a result of the environmental agency to regulate CO2 emissions.

The defendants reportedly will appeal the court’s decision.

Will New ASTM Standard for Assessing Vapor Intrustion Wreak Havoc on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process?

Sitting at a Starbucks at in Dallas, Texas, I'm looking North at a Chevron-branded station owned by TETCO.  This is clearly noted on the sign with regular gasoline at $3.19 per gallon.  Clearly I am sitting downhill from the station, and if my client were buying the shopping center, my first suggestion would be testing the groundwater to see if the underground storage tanks containing various grades of gasoline or diesel below the gas station/convenience store have leaked and contaminated the property--under the Starbucks.  When I visit this site after dropping my daughter at school, I see the capped groundwater monitoring wells.  I would venture a guess that the hundreds of people who walk over or park on top of them have no idea what they are?  The two charming elderly women sitting outside the women in front of me have no idea that their may be gasoline and diesel 10 or 20 feet below their feet.  In reality, they probably have no reason for concern.  But a new standard for assessing risk from vapors from soil and groundwater may create havoc for real estate developers and banks.

Thinking about these issues is no different from any day in the office as an environmental lawyer.  (The "office" having grown with laptops, Blackberries, and cell phones to be about anywhere I am, ergo sitting in Starbucks with my T-Mobile connection blogging about an environmental issue--the mobile environmental lawyer.) Tanks leak.  Piping leaks.  People drive off and pull of the hose dispenses or otherwise spill fuels.  This is nothing new and has been going on for decades.  What is new is an ASTM standard for assessing the risk that those chemicals in the soil and groundwater are turning into vapor and getting into a building?  Could this new standard wreak havoc on the Phase I environmental site assessment process?  Could it be that I'm breathing benzene as I sit here typing this message?

It's actually unlikely.  My toxicologist friends working who work with me to assist clients in advising clients who remediate contaminated sights say it is highly unlikely in most instances.  In fact, they tell me it is when you fill up your car that you get your biggest shot of benzene--a known human carcinogen. 

So why the ASTM standard for assessing these risks if in fact they are so unlikely?  In the environmental regulatory world I live in as a corporate environmental lawyer since I graduated from Harvard Law School over 20 years ago, the regulatory agencies have begun to focus on these issues.  Yes, primarily in California, where all environmental regulatory programs tend to start (California has enacted and will be implementing a climate change greenhouse gas program before the Congress passes a bill), and the Texas environmental agency has not really tackled this issue and does not necessarily require that it be assessed.  Reportedly, the California agency is going back to sites closed under old rules that did not require vapor intrusion analysis and requiring that the sites be re-examined.  EPA has issued guidance documents on the subject of vapor intrusions and how to test for it.

As regulatory agencies and scientists begin to look at vapor intrusion into buildings, these issues have come up in real estate transactions in many parts of the country.  Real estate developers, real estate investment trusts, and banks then start to ask questions and the environmental lawyers and environmental consultants that work for them in their transactions start to ask questions.  Is vapor intrusion a problem?  What are the concentrations of chemicals in buildings that may arise from human sources in the ground (in soil and groundwater)?  Do such concentrations present a risk to people who work, live, visit these buildings?

The new ASTM standard is titled "Standard Practice for the Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions" (E-2600-08). Roger Smith of Weston in Dallas provided this summary of the Standard.

The standard provides for a tiered approach to assessing and mitigating vapor intrusion conditions (VICs):

Tier 1

– Screening Level Assessment conducted with information typically gathered for a Phase I ESA (current and previous property use, location relative to potential sources, etc.) to decide if a potential vapor intrusion condition (pVIC) is present. It would make sense to include a request for a E 2600-8 Tier 1 VI screening level assessment along with the standard ASTM E1527 Phase I ESA. Since the assessment is based to a large degree on information gathered for the Phase I, there should be little additional cost associated with the screening levels assessment.

Tier 2

– Screening Level Assessment conducted by comparing information typically gathered in a Phase II ESA (soil and groundwater analytical data) to risk-based concentrations (look-up values) to decide if a pVIC is present. The Tier 2 VI assessments will mostly likely be requested whenever a standard Phase II ESA is requested. Since this is comparison to look-up values, there should be little additional cost associated with the Tier 2 screening level assessment.

Tier 3

– Vapor Intrusion Condition Assessment using modeling, soil gas samples, sub-slab vapor samples (from within buildings), and/or indoor air samples to decide if a VIC is present. This would be conducted when it has been determined that a pVIC is present that could affect current or future development on the property. The least expensive approach is likely to be modeling using existing data. This is typically a very conservative approach that may overestimate the risk of a VIC. If additional sampling is needed, the cost for conducting a VI assessment would typically be less than the cost for a Phase II assessment of the property.

Tier 4

– Vapor Intrusion Mitigation by building design, institutional controls, or engineering controls (removal of source, barriers, or mitigation systems). The scope and cost would be highly variable for Tier 4. For new construction, all three options are available. For existing construction, you are typically looking at the options for engineering controls.

The Standard is dense and may cause insomnia for even an environmental lawyer or consultant, but it does have potential implications for real estate transactions.  While it is not a part of the Phase I Site Assessment Standard which is used on almost all commercial real estate transactions, it is an add on to this standard.  It may in time become a standard practice to evaluate soil vapor intrusion.

If this happens, it may raise new issues and confusion in the commercial real estate market.  Banks will be unfamiliar with it and may be skiddish about chemical vapors and buildings.  What we need is to try to educate the real estate and banking industry about these issues.  While it will take time, it may be important not to scare off buyers and banks over vapor intrusions.

First, real risks may be rarely found.  The concentrations necessary to create a risk to workers in office buildings and industrial or warehouse settings are probably going to be rare.  People may need to work in buildings for 20 or 30 years, which is rare these days.  For residences, the concentrations are probably rarely going to raise a concern.  Second, for new buildings a vapor barrier can be constructed to prevent vapors from entering structures.  For old buildings, steps can be taken to vent the vapors.

Environmental assessments have become a standard practice in the real estate industry.  If vapor intrusion assessments become more commonly a part of those assessments, we need to be sure they don't become a source of undue alarm.  As commercial real estate faces the collateral damage of the subprime mortgage debacle, we need to take care that a new environmental concern and potential risk does not hamper transactions and the health of the market.  Understanding the scientific realities and real risk analysis is the first step in this process. 

California Federal District Court Dismisses Auto Industry Challenge of California Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Cars and Trucks

A federal District Court in California granted summary judgment to the State of California in a suit filed by the auto industry challenging California's power to pass legislation limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles.  California submitted a request for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act to enact their own emissions standards for automobiles, but the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has yet to rule on the request.  The case follows the ruling in the US Supreme Court that EPA may regulate greenhouse gases under the federal Clean Air Act and the carbon dioxide is an “air pollutant” under the Act.

The auto industry argued that California was prevented from were barred from regulating greenhouse emissions by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and that regulations proposed by the California Air Resources Control Board are preempted by U.S. foreign policy.

The District Court granted summary judgment to California, holding that the state's law would not conflict with federal authority nor bar the state from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  Further he concluded that if the EPA granted a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act to allow California’s proposed emissions standards, enforcement of such regulations would be consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The judge stated in his ruling, “Although regulations proposed by California ... must broadly advance EPA's primary purpose to protect public health and welfare and must be at least as stringent as the corresponding EPA regulations in the aggregate, the proposed, California regulations need not establish perfect compliance with all provisions of the Clean Air Act.” 

The two-year delay in EPA issued a waiver for California resulted in the recent filing of a lawsuit against EPA to attempt to force action.  Fourteen other states — including New York, Illinois and Massachusetts.  The waiver also would allow these states and other states to adopt the California greenhouse gas emissions standards for automobiles.  These standards would reduce emissions by 2009 from cars and light trunks by 25% and from sport utility vehicles by 18%. 

“Evidence presented to this court supports the conclusion that regulation of greenhouse gases emitted from motor vehicles has a place in the broader struggle to address global warming,” the opinion said. “Ultimately, the court concludes that plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate that the regulation stands as an obstacle to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s objectives.”

El Paso Corp to Pay $15.5 Million Fine in Pipeline Explosion Case

The Houston Chronicle reports that El Paso Corp. will pay a $15.5 million fine as part of a settlement with the Department of Justice and pipeline safety regulators related to a 2000 natural gas pipeline explosion in Carlsbad, N.M., that killed 12 people.

El Paso has also committed to spend $86 million to modify the 10,000-mile pipeline system that was part of the incident.

The Houston-based company has already spent $225 million on methods to better monitor and repair internal corrosion, which investigators say was the probable cause of the accident.