E2 Law Blog

Preemption and Natural Gas Development: Who is the Decider?

David Mandelbaum — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:30:44 -0500

This month's column in the Legal Intelligencer / Pennsylvania Law Weekly addresses two unrelated events in the week of April 9 (which speaks volumes about publication lag):

On April 11, in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth Public Utilities Comm'n, No. 284 MD 2012 (Pa. Commw. Ct.), a single judge of the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court preliminarily enjoined the effectiveness of Section 3309 of the 2012 Amendments to the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act, commonly known as "Act 13." Act 13, among other things, strengthened state preemption of local ordinances regulating oil and gas activities in Pennsylvania.
- The injunction will allow municipalities to enforce local ordinances that may not comply with Act 13, at least for a few more months.
- In a subsequent ruling, on April 20, the same judge denied leave to intervene to several oil and gas operators and two state legislators.
- On April 26, the PUC delayed issuance of its final order implementing Act 13 pending clarification of the injunction.
On April 13, President Obama issued Executive Order 13605, titled "Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources." Subsequently, on April 17, EPA issued final air pollution regulations for oil and gas production, but delayed the effective date of certain provisions for capturing emissions during completion of a hydraulically fractured well.

These events raise the question of who ought to be the primary regulator of new shale gas development. The case for multiple, overlapping regulators is weak. Which level of government ought to be the "decider?" Read Preemption and Natural Gas Development: Who is the Decider?, 35 Pa. L. Weekly 404 (May 1, 2012), here.

Sackett: Pre-enforcement Review Under the Clean Water Act

David Mandelbaum — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:41:08 -0500

My March column in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly was delayed untl April 10. 35 Pa. L. Weekly 336. It discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 10-1062 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2012). Sackett holds that respondents on enforcement orders under the Clean Water Act may obtain immediate, pre-enforcement judicial review of the order, or at least of the jurisdiction of EPA to issue an order. The United States had argued that Congress intended Clean Water Act orders to be like orders under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act that are insulated from pre-enforcement review by section 113(h) of CERCLA.

To read a copy of the column click here.

Jerry Stouck of GT Washington and David Weinstein of GT Tampa offer another take on Sackett in a GT Alert that you will find by clicking here.

EPA Issues 2012 Construction General Permit Without Numeric Turbidity Limit; Hosts Webinar to Introduce Permit Changes

David Mandelbaum — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:12:44 -0500

from Gregory R. Tan of GT Denver

On February 16, 2012, EPA issued the Final 2012 NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities ( the “Construction General Permit” or “CGP”), which replaces EPA’s 2008 CGP. The new Construction General Permit incorporates the requirements of the Construction and Development Rule issued by EPA in December 2009 at 40 C.F.R. Part 450 and effective on February 1, 2010. Along with the new requirements of the Construction and Development Rule, EPA is also requiring electronic filing of permit authorization documents, and has rolled out a revised stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) template and other guidance documents to aid permittees in complying with the new requirements. New Construction General Permit requirements incorporated from the Construction and Development Rule include measures for erosion and sedimentation control (including a natural buffer requirement), soil stabilization, dewatering, and pollution prevention, but the new CGP does not contain the numeric turbidity limit originally found in the Construction and Development Rule.

The Construction and Development Rule originally required construction sites 10 or more acres in size to meet a numeric standard for turbidity of 280 nephelometric turbidity units (“NTUs”) and conduct sampling of stormwater discharges to confirm compliance with the standard. However, EPA stayed the effectiveness of the numeric turbidity standard on November 5, 2010, after petitions for reconsideration pointed out errors in the methodology upon which the numeric limit was based. EPA has since published a Notice seeking additional data relevant to establishing a numeric turbidity limit with an aim to correct it and re-incorporate it into the Rule.

Meanwhile, EPA and states are required to incorporate the remaining requirements of the Construction and Demolition Rule into Construction General Permit renewals. EPA has suggested that states needing to renew their Construction General Permits before EPA issues a corrected numeric turbidity limit do so without a numeric limit, but EPA also recommends that these states consider issuing their CGPs for a shortened time period so the corrected limit can be incorporated sooner than in five years.

EPA is hosting a free webinar on the new EPA Construction General Permit on Wednesday, March 21, 2012, from 1:00 to 3:00 Eastern. Any interested party can register on EPA’s website. The two hour presentation will provide an overview of the 2012 CGP, including the new Construction and Development requirements, and will also address electronic filing requirements, available SWPPP templates and other helpful resources.

EPA’s CGP is effective in states and territories where EPA is the permitting authority, including Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, other U.S. territories and most Indian lands. In other states, a state general permit will apply.

Florida Businesses and Industries to Benefit From 2012 Energy Policy, Environmental & Growth Management Legislation

David Mandelbaum — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 08:10:04 -0500

from Reggie L. Bouthillier, Kenneth Metcalf*, Maribel N. Nicholson-Choice, and Todd Sumner of GT Tallahassee

The 2012 Florida Legislative Session focused on the redistricting process and passage of the State budget. Despite these challenging priorities, the Legislature passed several bills addressing energy policy, environmental regulation and growth management that are intended to benefit businesses and industries throughout Florida. To read our Alert providing a summary of the energy, environmental and growth management legislation passed by Florida's Legislature in the 2012 Session, click here.

*Kenneth Metcalf is Director of Planning and is a certified planner by the American Institute of Certified Planners.

Judicial Review of EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule - What to Expect Next

Caleb Holmes — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:13:13 -0500

In his January 18 post, Michael Cooke of GT Tampa wrote about the court-ordered stay of the Cross State Pollution Rule. Mr. Cooke provides details of the arguments made during subsequent briefing, and provides an analysis of what to expect next in the judicial review process, in this GT Alert.

Tracking "Environmental Debtors"

David Mandelbaum — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:14:16 -0500

February's column in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly / Legal Intelligencer considers the "environmental debts" that often arise in transactions or otherwise. Managing Environmental Obligations: Tracking "Environmental Debtors", 35 Pa. L. Weekly 196 (Feb. 28, 2012). Some undertake obligations to clean up, to operate facilities, to indemnify, or to maintain institutional controls. Others receive rights to enforce those obligations. Who owes a client a debt? Whom does the client owe? When should claims be accelerated? When should they be deferred?

EPA To Exercise Enforcement Discretion on Boiler MACT Deadlines

Caleb Holmes — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:43:20 -0500

From Michael Cooke of GT Tampa:

On Wednesday, January 18^th, by letter to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the EPA advised that it would exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the 2011 notification deadlines for existing boilers and incinerators that have passed while the EPA’s administrative stay of its March 2011 new rules has been pending. This step is being taken due to the January 9, 2012, decision of U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman which vacated the administrative stay, a decision I discussed in my previous post. After analyzing the court’s decision, EPA has stated that it will issue a “no action assurance letter” shortly that informs sources it will not enforce any of the notification requirements for new or existing boilers that arise under the 2011 rule. The EPA letter further states that it believes that noncompliance by existing sources with the 2011 rule “would be unlikely to warrant” civil enforcement action by third parties, but, in any event, such an action would require 60-days prior notice to EPA which would give EPA sufficient time to take further steps to address those impacts. With respect to new boilers and incinerators, the EPA concludes that there are no sources subject to requirements other than the notification obligations which now are being reconsidered. But EPA noted that, if it becomes aware of other permitting or compliance challenges for new sources as a result of the stay being vacated, EPA will issue a 90-day stay under the Clean Air Act or a longer stay under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) consistent with the district court’s opinion on stays under the APA. Finally, the letter states that EPA recognizes that industry needs sufficient time to comply with these standards and that, subject to public comment, EPA intends to reset the “compliance clock” when it finalizes the rules which it reproposed last December.

Air Turbulence

Caleb Holmes — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:31:31 -0500

From Michael Cooke of GT Tampa:

EPA and the federal courts have been busy with air issues in December and January, and the results have created substantial uncertainty for sources planning compliance efforts. These actions include two new air toxics rules for electric utilities (the “Mercury and Air Toxics Standard,” or “MATS”), issued by EPA in mid-December; a federal district court order issued in early January 2012 that vacated and remanded the “Delay Notice” EPA had issued to postpone the effectiveness of the Major Source Boiler MACT and Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (“CISWI”) unit standards ; and an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit staying the effectiveness of the final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that was issued by EPA on August 8, 2011. These actions affect a wide range of stationary air sources, including cement kilns, electric generating units, solid waste incinerators, and numerous industrial, commercial and institutional boilers. Regulated entities, understandably, are struggling to assess the impacts of them and make appropriate compliance plans.

Electric Utility Air Toxics and NSPS Rules

The MATS, issued by EPA on December 16, 2011, includes a maximum achievable control technology standard (“MACT) and a new source performance standard (“NSPS”). The MACT applies, in general, to coal- and oil-fired electric generating units (“EGU”), requiring them to monitor and reduce the level of mercury (“Hg”) and other heavy metals, acid gases, SO2, NOx, and particulate matter in their emissions. It also incorporates work practice standards to address organic air toxics such as dioxin/furan. It will become effective 60 days after publication of the new rule in the Federal Register, which should occur by next March or April. Waste-to-energy EGUs (i.e., solid waste incinerators that are used to produce energy) generally are not subject to the MATS rule but are covered by the CISWI standards (see discussion below). Under MATS, existing sources will be required to comply with the new standards within three years, with the potential for two 1-year extensions. The EPA also issued a New Source Performance Standard that applies to new units built, modified or reconstructed after May 3, 2011. EPA estimates that 40 per cent of the coal-fired units covered by the rule do not have the advanced compliance controls contemplated for compliance. Grid reliability is a serious issue and challenges to the new rule are expected.

Order Vacating Delay Notice For Major Source Boiler MACT and CISWI

Just as the major source boiler MACT and CISWI were scheduled to become effective in May of last year, EPA issued a “Delay Notice” that postponed the effectiveness of the rules until the earlier of judicial review or EPA’s reconsideration of the rules could be completed. Although judicial review of the substantive challenges to the rules has been pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals since shortly after the rules were published, environmental petitioners subsequently filed challenges to the Delay Notice in federal district court. On January 9, 2012, after determining it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the challenge, the U.S. District Court issued an order that vacated the Delay Notice and remanded it to EPA. The court held that EPA had acted arbitrarily in issuing what was, in effect, an administrative stay of the rule by not adequately addressing the traditional requirements for a stay. The effect of the vacatur order appears to activate the deadlines and requirements in the original rules. Adding to the uncertainty about applicable deadlines and standards, however, on December 23, 2011, the EPA had proposed revisions to the original standards. According to EPA, the reconsideration process is not expected to be completed until Spring 2012. This leaves regulated entities, which include more than 14,000 industrial boilers, as well as certain waste to energy and cement incinerators, guessing which standards ultimately will apply to their facilities and what immediate steps they need to take to ensure compliance with the existing rules. Although, from a purely legal perspective, the original standards (including notice requirements where deadlines already have passed) seem to apply now, from a practical perspective, some form of reconsidered standard is likely to prevail.

Stay of CSAPR

On December 30, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued a stay of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule that became final on October 7, 2011. The rule, which was designed to replace the Clean Air Interstate Rule promulgated in 2005 and which also applies to coal-fired EGUs, includes a January 1, 2012, compliance deadline for those states subject to SO2 and annual NOx reductions and an additional compliance date of May 1, 2012, for those states subject only to the ozone season NOx reductions. These were the same compliance dates that had been included in the proposed rule, but completion of the proposed rule had been delayed for a year, causing some affected entities to expect the dates to change. Do to the uncertainty created by the delay, some sources which had not already started to construct control projects they had planned for compliance purposes found it difficult to meet compliance requirements by the final deadlines. Moreover, both CAIR and CSAPR incorporate emissions trading programs to facilitate compliance with air emissions budgets, but the programs differ in certain respects in terms of the compliance caps and interstate trading that is permitted. Not surprisingly, the value of CSAPR credits dropped substantially once the stay was announced and some exchanges have delisted future sales of them for the time being .

Cement MACT Issues

Cement manufacturing facilities with incinerators that burn solid waste potentially are subject to CISWI rather than the Cement MACT that was issued in 2010. Although the Cement MACT is being litigated, and EPA is reconsidering certain aspects of it, the status of the CISWI rule and changes ultimately made to it could have a significant effect on the regulation of cement kilns. In the CISWI reconsideration proceeding, EPA is proposing to adjust emissions limits for waste-burning cement kilns (and for energy recovery units). EPA also is proposing revisions of the final rule that dealt with the types of non-hazardous secondary materials that can be burned in boilers or solid waste incinerators, classifying a number of secondary materials as non-waste when used as a fuel and allowing operators to request EPA to identify certain materials as non-waste fuels. Cement kilns need to track these issues carefully and consider commenting on the reconsidered rules. Comments must be received by February 21, 2012.

Next Steps

The final form of these various rules won’t be known for some time. Affected facilities--e.g., cement kilns, electric generating units, waste-to-energy units, commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities with boilers--need to track these developments carefully to analyze potential impacts on their compliance programs and make appropriate adjustments.

Declaratory Judgments Under Superfund

David Mandelbaum — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:54:40 -0500

Thirty years after enactment, lawyers and courts remain somewhat at sea over when declaratory judgments must be granted under the federal Superfund statute, when they may be granted, and when they should not be granted. Beginning from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's December 19 decision in New York v. Solvent Chemical Co., No. 10-1026-cv(L), in this month's column in the Legal Intelligencer / Pennsylvania Law Weekly, I consider this confusing area. Declaratory Judgments and Superfund Eyed by 2nd Circuit, 34 Pa. L. Weekly 1184 (Dec. 27, 2011). To read the column, click here.

CEQ Issues Draft Guidance to Promote Efficient NEPA Environmental Reviews

Caleb Holmes — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:54:00 -0500

From Melissa Meirink of GT Denver:

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recently issued draft guidance designed to promote more efficient environmental reviews of projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is a procedural statute that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions before deciding to adopt a proposal or to take action. NEPA is triggered when there is a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Although the current NEPA-implementing regulations provide methods for preparing efficient and timely environmental reviews, the CEQ's proposed guidance will emphasize and clarify those methods. Specifically, the guidance outlines the following principles for agencies to follow when conducting a NEPA review:

NEPA encourages simple, straightforward, and concise reviews
The NEPA process should begin early and should be integrated into project planning
NEPA reviews should adopt, use, and incorporate existing documents and studies
Targeted scoping can assist to focus environmental reviews on appropriate issues
Agencies should develop expeditious timelines for environmental reviews
Agencies should respond to comments in proportion to the scope and scale of the environmental issues raised

In addition, the draft guidance clarifies that many provisions of the existing regulations referring to an environmental impact statement (EIS) can also apply to an environmental assessment (EA). The draft guidance also provides measures to eliminate duplication of efforts and to promote better interagency interaction.

The draft guidance would promote a clear and more streamlined environmental review process under NEPA that would benefit agencies, project proponents, and others interested in the NEPA process. The CEQ is accepting public comment on the draft guidance until January 27, 2012.

Pennsylvania Legislature Proposes Amendments to the Oil and Gas Act

David Mandelbaum — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:04:04 -0500

In this month's Pennsylvania Law Weekly / Legal Intelligencer column, I discuss Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1100 and Pennsylvania House Bill 1950. The bills, which implement many of the recommendations made by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett's Marcellus Shale Advisory Commision, propose significant amendments to Pennsylvania's Oil and Gas Act intended to address Marcellus Shale gas development.

To read the column, click here.

U.S. Department of State to Delay Decision on Keystone XL Pipeline in Order to Assess Different Pathway Through Nebraska

Caleb Holmes — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:03:26 -0500

From Todd Sumner of GT Tallahassee:

On November 10, 2011, the U.S. State Department announced during a press briefing that it was delaying its decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline in order to assess other pathways through Nebraska. The 1700 mile crude oil pipeline which would run from the Alberta Oil Sands region in Canada and ultimately terminate at refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast would also traverse over the shallow water Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska's Sand Hills region.

While the State Department released the final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed oil pipeline on August 26, 2011, since that time opposition to the proposed route has expanded including Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman (R) due to the proposed route over the Ogallala aquifer. The Nebraska Governor had already called a special session of the Nebraska legislature for the crafting of pipeline siting/approval legislation that will be further vetted during the week of November 14th. The State Department is now to be looking at alternative routes of the Keystone pipeline that would avoid or minimize impacts to the Nebraska Sand Hills region. The alternative pipeline route review will be conducted as a supplemental environmental impact statement and the State Department's final decision on the proposed pipeline is estimated to conclude sometime following the 2012 presidential election.

DRBC Releases Final Draft Regulations on Natural Gas Development

Caleb Holmes — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:27:09 -0500

From Adam Silverman of GT Philadelphia:

This week, the Delaware River Basin Commission (“DRBC”) released its final draft natural gas development regulations in anticipation of a final vote on whether the DRBC will adopt the regulations. The vote is scheduled for November 21, 2001. There is some reason to believe that the Commission vote may not be unanimous, which would be a rare occurrence. If adopted, the regulations will end a moratorium imposed on drilling for natural gas within the Delaware River watershed, which supplies water to Philadelphia and New York City. Since first introducing draft regulations in 2010, the DRBC received nearly 70,000 comments from the public, some of which were reportedly incorporated into subsequent drafts of the regulations.

The final draft regulations would permit the drilling of 300 wells within the watershed, provide setback requirements, and increase financial assurance requirements to, in certain cases, $5MM per well up to $25MM for multiple-well sites. State regulations will determine the construction and operation of individual wells and pads but water sources for well pads require approval by the DRBC. The regulations also limit the discharge and storage of wastewater and fracking fluid within the watershed. The DRBC plans to reassess the regulations after 18 months.

Several lawsuits have already been filed in connection with the DRBC’s attempt to regulate natural gas drilling, including a lawsuit filed by New York’s Attorney General and a lawsuit filed by the several environmental conservation organizations.

Among other things, the lawsuits seek compliance with federal environmental laws. If adopted, it is expected that the regulations themselves would be challenged.

The DRBC, which is comprised of one representative Commissioner from the federal government, Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, is the agency responsible for protecting the waters of the Delaware River watershed under the Delaware River Basin Compact.

Recurring Issues With NSR and PSD Enforcement

David Mandelbaum — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:53:52 -0500

In this month's Pennsylvania Law Weekly / Legal Intelligencer column, I discuss United States v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 11-19 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2011), and Jackson v. EME Homer City Generation, No. 11-28 (W.D. Pa. Oct 13, 2011), and the recurring issues related to the enforcement of the Clean Air Act's new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) programs.

To read the article, click here.

10th Circuit Upholds Sharp Restrictions of Clinton-Era Roadless Rule in Forests

Caleb Holmes — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:21:28 -0500

From Jeffrey Collier of GT West Palm Beach:

On October 21st, the U.S. Forest Service and environmental advocates successfully defended the Clinton administration's Roadless Area Conservation Rule ("Roadless Rule"), winning a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit requiring a district court to vacate its nationwide injunction against the rule. See Wyoming v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture (USDA), No. 09-8075 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2011).

The state of Wyoming, with support from the Colorado Mining Association, had won a decision in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming on claims that the Roadless Rule violated the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") by creating de facto wilderness areas and by doing so without following NEPA procedural requirements. The Roadless Rule eliminated prospects for almost any road construction on about 58.5 million acres of federal land.

The USDA, including the Forest Service, appealed to the 10th Circuit with support from environmental groups. The department argued that federal laws gave the Forest Service adequate discretion to bar road construction in national forests, and that the rule had been developed in conformity with NEPA requirements.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled in favor of the Forest Service on all points. The appeals court said the Roadless Rule allowed the possibility of at least some road construction and some grazing and mining, which meant that it did not amount to a de facto creation of wilderness. The decision brings the 10th Circuit into agreement with the Ninth Circuit, which had rejected challenges to the Clinton administration's 2001 Roadless Rule. See Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002). This decision will, for the time being, continue to limit access to federal wilderness lands for mining, drilling, timbering, and related uses.

Compare Minard Run Oil Co. v. USFS, Nos. 10-1265 and 10-2332, (3rd Cir. Sept. 20, 2011), in which the 3rd Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction entered by the District Court prohibiting the U.S. Forest Service from making the completion of a multi-year, forest-wide Environmental Impact Study a condition for issuing Notices to Proceed to mineral owners seeking to drill for oil or gas. See also PAPCO, Inc. v. USFS, No. 08-253 (W.D. Penn. Aug. 30, 2011), in which the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted summary judgment in favor of PAPCO, holding that PAPCO is permitted the reasonable use of an easement to obtain its oil, gas and mineral rights in the Allegheny National Forest.

Pennsylvania DEP Issues Draft Guidance on the Aggregation of Air Sources

David Mandelbaum — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:29:16 -0500

As mentioned earlier, I recently dedicated my monthly column for the The Legal Intelligencer/Pennsylvania Law Weekly to an examination of two Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board appeals which address aggregation of air emission sources under the Clean Air Act and the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act.

This week the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has issued draft technical guidance on this issue. PADEP's draft guidance addresses how to determine when two operations in the oil and gas business constitute a single "source" for purposes of regulation under the federal and state air statutes. Sources that emit more than a threshold amount of a pollutant (typically 250 tons/year for each pollutant) are subject to a somewhat onerous permitting requirement before being constructed or modified (that is, nonattainment new source review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration new source review).

The draft guidance interprets longstanding (but confusing) federal requirements that apply a three part test: two well pads, compressor stations, or processing plants constitute a single "source" if (a) they are in the same industry, (b) they are under common control, and (c) they are "contiguous" or "adjacent." The PADEP guidance focuses (properly) on whether two facilities in the natural gas industry under control of the same or related entities are "contiguous" or "adjacent." PADEP will not generally "daisy chain" facilities along a gathering system, nor will it allow the pipelines to establish contiguity. It will consider surface facilities as a single source if they are within a quarter-mile and more distant facilities as a single source on a case-by-case basis.

De Novo Review in the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board

David Mandelbaum — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:40:50 -0500

In this month's Pennsylvania Law Weekly / Legal Intelligencer column, Sabrina Mizrachi and I consider the recent Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) decision, Consol Pennsylvania Co. v. Department of Environmental Protection, EHB Docket No. 2010-030-R (Pa. Env. Hrg. Bd. Aug 26, 2011). We use Chief Judge Thomas W. Renwand's opinion as a chance to review the sometimes confusing jurisdictional and procedural principles of the EHB.

To read the article, click here.

Governor Corbett Outlines Plan for New Standards, Fees on Shale Drilling

Caleb Holmes — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:39:56 -0500

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett announced that he will present a plan to the General Assembly that will implement numerous recommendations proposed by the Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission (Commission), including an impact fee on wells and more rigorous standards on hydraulic fracturing. The impact fee would subject each well to a fee of up to $40,000 in the first year, $30,000 in the second, $20,000 in the third, and $10,000 in the fourth through tenth year, adding up to a potential $160,000 per well. Seventy-five percent of the revenues collected from these fees would be distributed to the counties and municipalities in which drilling is taking place, with the vast majority of the remainder going to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for infrastructure and maintenance of roads in those same counties.

The proposed standards would increase well setback distances from wells and waterbodies, increase penalties and bond requirements, and expand gas operators' "presumed liability" for impairing water quality from 1,000 to 2,500.

Governor Corbett created the Commission by Executive Order in March in order to create a plan for developing the Marcellus Shale responsibly, and on July 22 the Commission issued its final report, which included 96 policy recommendations.

New York Issues Draft Fracking Regulations for Public Comment

Caleb Holmes — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 07:58:18 -0500

In July, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") released its draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("SGEIS") on horizontal drilling. As we explained in more detail earlier, the draft SGEIS included draft regulations, which would impose "rigorous and effective controls" on hydraulic fracturing. In September, NYSDEC supplemented its SGEIS, adding mitigation measures addressing socioeconomic, community character, visual, noise and transportation impacts.

NYSDEC has now issued its draft regulations, which are the same as those released in July, for public comment. The public comment period will conclude December 12, and four public hearings are being held in November in Dansville, Binghamton, Sheldrake and New York City.

EPA Adopts Plan to Address Environmental Justice Issues

Caleb Holmes — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:31:45 -0500

From Samantha Corson of GT Philadelphia:

Seventeen years after President Clinton issued an Executive Order on the issue, The United State Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has returned to the issue of environmental justice with the adoption of Plan EJ 2014. Environmental justice is the moniker used to describe efforts to consider whether exposure to environmental risks are distributed evenly throughout society (and in particular, to ensure the fair treatment of low income, minority and indigenous populations). Through Plan EJ 2014, EPA intends to take community characteristics and demographics into account in its regulatory decision-making.

EPA takes pains to underscore that Plan EJ 2014 is not a rule or guidance document, but instead is a "strategy" to integrate environmental justice into EPA's activities. The vast majority of Plan EJ 2014 summarizes implementation plans for five "Cross-Agency Focus Areas" and four "Tools Development Areas." The Cross-Agency Focus Areas include strategies to incorporate environmental justice concerns into rulemaking, permitting, compliance and enforcement, support for community-based action groups and fostering administration-wide action on environmental justice. Plan EJ 2014 also explores scientific, legal, information management and financial "tools" that can be developed or refined to support EPA's efforts to evaluate and address environmental and health inequities among overburdened communities. Plan EJ 2014 concludes with a discussion of EPA's intention to support existing EPA programs that pursue environmental justice goals and the EPA's intention to improve its civil rights program.

We have seen past EPA efforts to formulate a cohesive strategy to address environmental justice issues. In the late 1990s EPA published a series of guidance documents intended to integrate environmental justice considerations into EPA assorted activities, including the Final Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in Clean Air Act 309 Reviews (July 1999), Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analysis (April 1998) and the Interim Guidance for Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints Challenging Permits (February 1998). Such efforts were mostly stalled until EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson refocused on environmental justice as an Agency priority. Under Jackson's leadership, EPA published Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During the Development of an Action in July of 2010. The guidance outlines a step-by-step process to assist EPA staff in evaluating environmental justice considerations at key points in the rulemaking process. Finalization of this guidance is part of EPA's strategy outlined in Plan EJ 2014. EPA anticipates releasing the guidance in final form in December 2011. By 2014, EPA intends to mark the 20th anniversary of Clinton's Executive Order by making an assessment of its progress in achieving this objective as well as the other goals of Plan EJ 2014 in a report analyzing the Agency's efforts to achieve the specific objectives of the Plan and also more generally the Agency's efforts to make environmental justice an integral part of every decision.