A Federal Court has recently thrown open the door to potential civil challenges to both private and governmental sources of greenhouse gas emissions, based on the Federal common law of nuisance. For those who believe the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has acted too slowly in promulgating greenhouse gas regulation, civil actions are now possible at least in the Second Circuit. However, the Supreme Court may now scrutinize the Second Circuit’s decision. Based on a recent Fourth Circuit decision on a similar issue, the “Nine” may be tempted to follow in Moses’ footsteps and pare down the Second Circuit decision to apply only to greenhouse gas emissions from Federal projects.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that, unless it receives adverse comments by the close of the comment period on August 13, 2010, it will approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). A SIP is an enforceable plan, developed at the state level and submitted to the EPA for approval, that…
After all of the debate was over, both on the Senate floor and in the press, it boiled down to a party line vote – again, with six Democrats crossing over to vote for the other side. As Jim Abrams of The Associated Press reported:
The defeated resolution would have denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to move ahead with [its] rules [requiring permits for greenhouse gas emissions (“the tailoring rule”)], crafted under the federal Clean Air Act. With President Barack Obama’s broader clean energy legislation struggling to gain a foothold in the Senate, the vote took on greater significance as a signal of where lawmakers stand on dealing with climate change.
Much has been made recently of the studies currently underway in areas around Boston Logan and Santa Monica Airports, aimed at determining the health impacts of those airports on surrounding populations. While the aim is noble, and the information to be gained useful in structuring individual living choices, the result will have little or no impact on the operation of those airports.
On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] issued a final rule establishing lowered standards for acceptable levels of sulfur-dioxide [SO2] emissions. The new rule also changes the monitoring requirements for SO2. SO2 is one of six criteria pollutants which Federal agencies must evaluate under the EPA’s General Conformity Rule, to determine whether emissions from a proposed project would conform to an approved CAA implementation plan. If a conformity analysis and determination indicate that a proposed Federal project would not conform to an applicable implementation plan, the project cannot be funded, licensed, permitted or approved.…
Continue Reading EPA Sets New Standards for Sulfur-Dioxide (SO2) Emissions and Monitoring
UPDATED May 5, 2010
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced in the April 23, 2010 Federal Register that it will release the Draft General Conformity Determination for the Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) for the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP) for public comment on April 27, 2010. Ordinarily, the public has 30 days…
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its final finding that emission of six greenhouse gases endangered the public’s health and the environment because of their effect on climate change, the business community wondered how it should respond to the news. At first glance, there seems to be blinding maze of legal and policy issues that will affect business decisions. Although far from clear, there is a way out of the maze – although businesses with significant greenhouse gas emissions should be prepared to tackle the important issues that the Endangerment Finding raises.
Businesses Need to Take a Deep Breath (Irony Intended)
The road to the endangerment finding began in 2007, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases constituted “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. To most savvy businessmen this was a clear signal to start planning how their businesses would cope with the establishment of limits on emission of greenhouse gases. Although the Bush Administration EPA successfully sat on the issue, when the Obama Administration took office, most companies recognized that an endangerment finding would top the EPA’s list of major environmental actions. Thus, EPA’s announcement this past April of its proposed finding and its announcement of the final endangerment finding should have come as no surprise to anyone who has been monitoring this issue.
The key thing for businesses to remember is that the endangerment finding by itself does not regulate the emission of greenhouse gases from any source, large or small. That being said, it does have a direct impact on mobile sources (because of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act), with the EPA planning on issuing its final “light-duty vehicle” greenhouse gas emissions rule some time in Spring 2010.
On Tuesday, November 17, 2009, Chevalier, Allen & Lichman filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of its client County of Delaware, Pennsylvania (“Delaware”). The Petition asks the Court to reverse the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in County of Rockland, New York, et…
In a per curiam Abbreviated Disposition that will not be published, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit summarily denied 12 separately-filed petitions for review that questioned the legality of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Environmental Impact Statement for its East Coast Airspace Redesign. The matter, Rockland County v. Federal Aviation Administration…
Over two years ago, on April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), directed the EPA Administrator to determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. Finally, after two years and much hand-wringing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued her proposed finding that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride may endanger public health or welfare.
In actuality, the EPA proposed two findings: (1) an endangerment finding, that the six GHG endanger public health and welfare; and (2) a “cause and contribute finding” that the combined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence add to the threat of climate change.
EPA characterizes its proposed Endangerment Finding as follows:
This is not a close case in which the magnitude of the harm is small and the probability great, or the magnitude large and the probability small. In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem. The greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA, however, was careful to walk a fine line between complying with the dictates of Massachusetts and actually regulating GHG. While this proposed rule does not actually regulate GHG, it does propose defining greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. EPA proposes defining the six GHG as a single pollutant, rather the defining them individually – similar to the approach the EPA took with ozone years ago. EPA explained its decision as follows:
It is the Administrator’s judgment that this collective approach for the contribution test is most consistent with the treatment of greenhouse gases by those studying climate change science and policy, where it has become common practice to evaluate greenhouse gases on a collective CO2-equivalent basis
Although the EPA usually issues emission control standards concurrently with an endangerment finding, in this case, the EPA indicated that the emission standards would be issued “several months from now.” This bifurcation of the normal process has been taken by observers to mean that these rules are meant to goad the Congress into action, rather than a serious proposal that EPA regulate GHG. Indeed, the EPA’s Press Release on the Endangerment finding specifically stated that “[n]otwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy.”
And Congressional leadership seems ready to oblige. Rep. Edward Markey (D.Mass.), Chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, had this to say about the EPA’s Endangerment Ruling:
This decision is a game-changer. It is now no longer a choice between doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation. EPA will have to act if Congress does not act.
Markey and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) have introduced the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) to set up a system for reducing emissions from all sources and creating a financial incentive for companies to stay within emission limits. See, “U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Releases Draft Climate Change Act,” posted April 2, 2009. Waxman wants to pass the bill from his Energy and Commerce Committee by the end of May, but its fate is uncertain in the Senate.
Aircraft and other aviation sources seem to have received a pass with respect to these regulations:
EPA has received a petition under the Act to consider the regulation of 64 aircraft emissions (water vapor and NOx) that lead to formation of contrails (in addition to aircraft greenhouse gas emissions), and EPA plans to evaluate this issue further. At this time, the Administrator is not proposing to include aircraft-related contrails or emissions that are not greenhouse gases within the definition of air pollution for purposes of section 202(a).
This does not mean, however, that once the emission control standards are promulgated (if they are promulgated), aviation sources will not also be regulated. Likewise, the Waxman-Markey bill may affect aviation sources as well.
A 60-day comment period will follow publication of the proposed rule in Federal Register, which has not yet occurred. There will be public hearings in Arlington, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington in May, 2009. Click on Continue Reading at the bottom of this post for details about written comments and public hearings.
Previous posts on this subject:
- “U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Releases Draft Climate Change Act,” posted April 2, 2009.
- “EPA Proposes National Reporting Rules for Greenhouse Gases,” posted March 10, 2009.
- “U.S. House Subcommittee Hears Testimony on Problems of Carbon Offsets in Climate Change Legislation,” posted March 5, 2009.
- “EPA Administrator Issues Memorandum Prohibiting Controls on Carbon Dioxide in Clean Air Act Permits,” posted December 21, 2008.
- “GAO Issues ‘Expert Opinion on the Economics of the Policy Options to Address Climate Change,’” posted June 9, 2008.
- “Senate ‘Debates’ Global Warming Bill,” posted June 9, 2008.
- “EPA Administrator States that Greenhouse Gas Regulation May Not Be Issued Until After January, 2009,” posted May 20, 2008.
- “States File Lawsuit to Enforce Ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA,” posted April 3, 2008