## Aggregation of Air Emissions

- What Does Adjacency Really Mean

Y VONNE E. H ENNESSEY , E SQ . AWMA O IL & G AS E NVIRONMENTAL C OMPLIANCE C ONFERENCE A PPALACHIAN B ASIN M AY 14, 2014

# Presentation Overview

I. Definition of “Major Source” II. Regulatory History of “Adjacency” III. The Summit decision IV. How States in the Appalachian Basin are Addressing Aggregation

a. Pennsylvania
b. West Virginia

c. New York 

### V. Conclusion: Current State of the Law

# I. “Major Source” “any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit a regulated NSR pollutant”

# “Major Source”

• CAA regulations define a “Major Source” as any stationary facility or source of air pollutants that directly emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy of any air pollutant.

• Nitrogen Oxides (NO X 

### )

• Carbon Monoxide (CO)

• Particulate Matter (PM)

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 

### )

• Lead (Pb)

• Ozone (O 3 

### ) and precursors (e.g., VOCs)

# “Major Source”

• PSD, NSR, and Title V regulations apply to certain sources with the potential to emit pollutants in excess of the “major” source thresholds.

• To assess applicability, permitting authorities evaluate whether emissions from two or more pollutant

- emitting activities should be aggregated into a single “major” stationary source.

# “Major Source”

• The evaluation begins with the federal definition of “stationary source.” 40 CFR 52.21(b)(5)

• Pennsylvania: a “major emissions unit” is based on the thresholds of a “major facility,” as defined in 25 Pa. Code § 121.1, which are similar to the federal definition.

• New York: similar definition for major source exists at 6 NYCRR 201

- 2.1(b)(21).

• West Virginia: defines a major stationary source under 45 CSR 14

- 2.43a, similar to federal definition.



## • A stationary/major source is... “any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit a regulated NSR pollutant.”

# “Major Source” “Building, structure, facility, or installation” is defined, in turn, as:

“all of the pollutant

- emitting activities which belong to the same industrial grouping, are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and are under the control of the same person (or persons under common control) except the activities of any vessel

. ”

40 CFR 52.21(b)(6); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(6)

# Aggregation Factors

• To determine if separate emission points belong to the same “building, structure, facility, or installation” ( i.e. whether aggregation is required), permitting authorities generally rely on the following three criteria:
1. Whether the activities belong to the same industrial grouping (SIC Code); 2. Whether the activities are located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties; and 3. Whether the activities are under common control.



### • No statutory or regulatory definition of “adjacent” exists at either the state or federal level.

# “Adjacent”

• The key issue:

– What does it mean to be adjacent?

• Should adjacency be determined based on geographic proximity alone, or,

• Should a strict functional relationship or operational interdependence test apply to determine whether sources should be considered “adjacent ,” or

• Is there a middle ground ?

– functional relationship or operational interdependence of the sources a factor to be analyzed in order to give context to geographic proximity

# II. The Regulatory History of “Adjacency” “Common sense notion of a plant”

-

Alabama Power Co. v. Costle

# Alabama Power v. Costle 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979)



### • 1979 Federal Circuit decision.

• Litigation concerned challenges to the EPA’s final regulations implementing the 1977 CAA Amendments.

• Court found that the EPA’s definition of “stationary source” must not be broader than the CAA.

• The definition can be broad enough to cover an entire plant.

• Must be in accordance with the “common sense notion of a plant.”

• USEPA must avoid aggregating sources that would not fit into the ordinary meaning of “building,” “structure,” “facility,” or “installation.”



### • Directed USEPA to:

– develop regulatory definition using considerations such as proximity and ownership

– make rules predictable.

# 1980 PSD rules

• USEPA confirmed that it does not intend a single source to encompass activities that would be many miles apart along a long line operation.

• e.g., USEPA would not treat all of the pumping stations along a multistate pipeline as one source.



### • Declined to add a specific “functionality” criteria to the definition of source because of belief that “assessments of functional interrelationships would be highly subjective” and “embroil[ ] the Agency in fine

- grained analysis.”

• USEPA wanted to avoid a highly subjective test. BUT...

# 1980 PSD Rules

• USEPA unable to say precisely how far apart activities must be in order to be treated separately.

• No bright line distance test established to determine adjacency.

• USEPA opted for case

- by

- case determinations.

# Adjacency: Beyond Geographic Proximity

• Early on, the USEPA rejected the idea of looking beyond geographic proximity to define adjacency.

• Despite this, USEPA determinations over the years and with changes in leadership began aggregating sources that were miles away and considered them a single source for air permitting and regulatory purposes.

• During the 1990s, USEPA began giving more weight to the functional interrelatedness of operations than to the physical separation of facilities in making single source determinations.

– Notably

– no change in regulations during this time. Pattern emerged in individual letter determinations.

# The Wehrum Memo
USEPA’s 2007 guidance memo on “Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries”

• Purpose was to provide guidance to assist permitting authorities in making major stationary source determinations for the oil and gas industry.

• Looked to Alabama Power for boundaries on USEPA’s discretion to interpret the component terms of “stationary source.”

• Recognized that source determinations within the oil and gas industries are not always straightforward.

• Sought to simplify the analysis.

# The Wehrum Memo

• Found that “[g]iven the diverse nature of the oil and gas activities, ... proximity is the most informative factor in making source determinations for the oil and gas industries.”

• Stated that interconnected sources could be considered separate minor sources for N SR and Title V purposes if the sites were located more than a quarter mile from each other.

• “adjacent” = 1⁄4 mile



### • Made geographic proximity, and not interrelatedness, the determining factor: “Unless unique factors (such as proximity or interdependence) indicate otherwise, permitting authorities can consider oil and gas exploration and production activity located on a single surface site to be an individual stationary source.”

# The McCarthy Memo

• In 2009, Gina McCarthy, the Assistant Administrator for USEPA’s office of Air and Radiation, issued the Withdrawal of Source Determinations for Oil and Gas Industries

• Withdrew the Wehrum Memo: “The [Wehrum] memorandum did not mandate application of a particular approach but instead was a non

- binding policy statement that set forth a possible methodology for making source determinations in these industries.”

# The McCarthy Memo

• Rejected prior memo’s emphasis on proximity:

• “I find individual facts warrant a closer examination of all three criteria identified in those regulations to arrive at a reasoned decision, and therefore, the simplified approach provided in the [Wehrum] memorandum should not be relied on by permitting authorities as a sufficient endpoint in the decision

- making process.”



### • Stated that aggregation determinations must be made on a case - by

- case basis analyzing the 3 regulatory criteria.

• Indicated that activities located more than a short distance away could be aggregated and considered a single source if the specific facts warranted such a conclusion.

• Uses interrelatedness as a means of determining adjacency.

# III. Summit Petroleum Corporation v. EPA (2012)
“Whether the distance between two facilities enables a given relationship to exists between them is immaterial to the concept of adjacency”

# Summit

• Summit is a natural gas producer that owns and operates a sweetening plant. It also operates all of the wells and pipelines that connect the wells to the sweetening plant.

• The plant sweetens gas from approximately 100 production wells.

• Wells located over 43 square miles, located from 500 feet to 8 miles from the sweetening plant.



### • None of the wells share a common boundary with each other or the plant (not contiguous), and Summit does not own the intervening property.

• Alone, the plant does not exceed “Major” source thresholds, but would exceed them if it were aggregated with one or more of the wells.Location of Sweetening Plant,

Pipeline, and Well Fields 1 Sq. Mile (approx)

# Summit

• USEPA made a determination based on a request from Summit Petroleum and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that a sweetening plant and some wells should be aggregated because they were “truly interrelated” and, therefore, adjacent.

– USEPA concludes that the plant, well site and flares were “ a djacent” because of the interdependent nature of the activities.

• USEPA relied on the McCarthy Memo to support its determination that facilities were adjacent despite the lack of physical proximity.

• Summit appealed the USEPA’s decision and challenged the use of functional relatedness.

# Summit

• The Sixth Circuit ruled that the USEPA could not base adjacency on anything but geographical proximity. 690 F.3d 733 (6 th Cir. 2012 )

• The Court considered the dictionary definition and plain meaning of “adjacent” and determined that:

• “adjacent” is unambiguous;

• it requires proximity;

• case law supports the idea that adjacency relates only to physical proximity;

• USEPA’s functional interrelatedness test was unreasonable; and

• USEPA’s own regulatory history does not support the use of a relatedness test

# Summit

• The Court looked to API’s arguments and agreed that the USEPA’s test was particularly ill

- suited for the oil and gas industry ... operations do not comport with the common sense notion of a plant.

– Also agreed that the “common sense notion of a plant” directive was meant to constrain, not enlarge, the USEPA’s definition of a single stationary source.

• The court remanded back to the USEPA.

• Ordered USEPA to make its determination based on the requirement that the activities be aggregated only if they are located on physically contiguous or adjacent properties.

• Court did not determine how geographically close is sufficient for facilities to be considered a single source.

• One judge dissented.

# Summit

“We are particularly struck by API’s final observation

— that the EPA’s source determination in this case is an ironic showcase of the very fears that caused the agency not to adopt a functional relatedness test for source determinations in the first instance. From Summit and MDEQ’s joint source determination request in January 2005 to the final iteration of the EPA’s decision, nearly five years passed. The parties engaged in at least twenty

five conference calls and exchanged “ a small mountain of paper ” within this period. Certainly, the cost for Summit to produce the data and schematics requested by the EPA, and the cost for the EPA to distill and understand the same, were high in terms of both monetary and capital resources. As API points out, this process produced exactly the “fine

- grained” and administratively burdensome result the EPA sought to avoid in its drafting of its Title V stationary source test , see 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,695, and is strong evidence that the EPA’s interpretation of its own regulation was unreasonable .”

# USEPA’s Response to Summit

• USEPA sought rehearing of Summit Decision, which was denied by the Court on October 29, 2012.

• On December 21, 2012, the USEPA issued the Applicability of the Summit Decision to USEPA Title V and NSR Source Determination memo.

• Policy of Non

- Acquiescence:

• The memo states that, in jurisdictions outside of the Sixth Circuit, the USEPA will not follow the Summit Decision.

• In these jurisdictions (e.g., PA, WV, NY), the USEPA will continue to look at the interrelatedness of sources to determine whether they should be aggregated.



### • The 6 th 

### Circuit includes: Ohio , Kentucky , Tennessee, and Michigan.

# IV. How States in the Appalachian Basin are Addressing Aggregation
Pennsylvania West Virginia New York

# PA Guidance

• PADEP “ Guidance For Performing Single Stationary Source Determination For Oil And Gas Industries ”

• Effective October 6, 2012.

• Press release when issued:

• “The court’s opinion in Summit Petroleum v. EPA, which dealt with the aggregation of separate natural gas facilities in Michigan, made very clear that Pennsylvania’s approach is the correct interpretation and application of the law

. ”

• “We in Pennsylvania have a lengthy and successful history of regulating the oil and gas industry, and we are ensuring that this state and this country realize the full promise of abundant, domestic, cheap, clean

- burning natural gas extracted and brought to market in an environmentally sensitive manner .”

# PA Guidance

• Makes geographical proximity the key factor in source determinations.

• “the plain meaning of the terms ‘contiguous’ and ‘adjacent’ should be the dispositive factor” when determining whether stationary sources are located on contiguous or adjacent properties.

• “contiguous”

– sharing an edge or boundary; touching; neighboring, adjacent, connecting without a break

.

• “Adjacent”

– close to; lying near, next to; adjoining

.

# PA Guidance

• If sources are less than 1⁄4 mile away, they are presumed to be a single source (if they meet two other regulatory criteria).

• Single source determinations for properties located beyond this quarter

- mile range will be considered on a case - by

- case basis.

• “The application of the quartermile ‘rule of thumb’ takes the ‘common sense approach’ to aggregation issues and does not aggregate pollutant

- emitting activities that, as a group, would not fit within the ordinary meaning of a ‘structure, building, facility or installation.’”

• USEPA Region III provided negative comments on PADEP’s Guidance.

# Laurel Mtn. Midstream

• Group Against Smog and Pollution (“GASP”) v. PADEP / Laurel Mtn. Midstream (EHB 2011

- 065)

– In May 2011, GASP challenged PADEP’s finding that the Shamrock Compressor Station emissions should not be aggregated with well pad emissions.

• Neither Laurel Mtn. nor its parent company owned or controlled the wells (common control prong not met)



### – GASP withdrew its appeal in April 2013 citing “Appellant has determined that further pursuing this appeal would no longer be productive.”

# MarkWest
Clean Air Council v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection , EHB Docket No. 2011

- 072

- R.

• PADEP determined that a processing plant and several compressor stations (located between 1.6 and 11 miles from the plant) were not a single source and declined to aggregate.

• CAC appealed PADEP’s decision, arguing that emissions from the compressor stations and the processing plant should be aggregated.Location of MarkWest Houston Gas Processing Plant Relative to Compressor Stations

# MarkWest

• MarkWest filed a motion to preclude evidence aimed at showing a functional relationship between MarkWest’s gas processing plant and compressor stations.

• The question was whether MarkWest’s facilities could be considered “adjacent” based on their functional relationship to one another, or whether the inquiry is limited to geographical proximity.

• The EHB concluded that:

• evidence of the functional relationship of MarkWest’s facilities could be presented by CAC, and

• the EHB would determine at trial how much weight the functional relationship should be given in determining whether the compressor stations and the plant are “adjacent.”

# MarkWest

• In September 2013, CAC and MarkWest settled, and the EHB case closed.

• CAC agreed not to appeal a plan or permit associated with the facility or the compressor stations.

• MarkWest agreed not to appeal any prior determinations of the EHB.



### • PADEP and CAC also entered into a separate settlement, wherein PADEP has agreed to make aggregation decisions more transparent.

# PennFuture v. Ultra Resources

• Federal court case pending in U.S. District Court, M.D. Pa

• PADEP not a party.

• Background

– Ultra Resources currently operates natural gas wells on 13 producing well pads with 8 compressor stations, connected by gathering lines in Potter and Tioga Counties.

– Gas is piped to a Metering and Regulation Station before it enters the Dominion interstate transmission pipeline.

– Between 2009 and 2011, PADEP approved the construction and operation of each compressor station and associated equipment under various General Permits

• Four compressor stations were operational in 2010; the remaining four operational in 2011.

– In authorizing each facility under GP

- 5, PADEP made the decision that each was a separate NOx emitting facility.

– PennFuture did not appeal any of the permit approvals to the EHB.

# PennFuture v. Ultra Resources

• July 2011

- PennFuture filed a Citizen Suit under Section 304 of the Clean Air Act against Ultra Resources.

– Alleges violations of the CAA, the PA SIP, and the PA Nonattainment New Source Review (“NSR”) regulations for failure to obtain an NSR permit to construct the compressor stations.

– Contends that Ultra Resources’ network of wells, pipelines, and compressor stations in its Marshlands Play (over 558 sq. miles) are a single NOx emitting source for air permitting purposes.

– Argues that activities which occur several miles apart may be deemed “contiguous or adjacent” if they are operationally interdependent (relying on USEPA letter to John Slade, PADEP, dated Jan. 15, 1999).

– Therefore, PennFuture asserts that NOx emissions from each compressor station should have been aggregated such that an NSR permit was required.

# PennFuture v. Ultra Resources

• Sept. 2011

– 2012 Court considers Ultra Resoruces’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for the court to abstain.

– Court denies motion to dismiss. Holds that although PennFuture had not exhausted its administrative remedies, the CAA did not contain an exhaustion requirement and expressly allows citizens’ suits.

• Feb. 2014

– Ultra Resources files motion for summary judgment

– “Contiguous or adjacent” does not include “operational interdependence;” cite Summit and PADEP guidance; also points to plain language of regulation.

– Even if “operational interdependency” is used, the facilities do not meet the definition.

• The fact that each compressor station ties into metering and regulation station does not make them functionally related. Compression stations are not interdependent on one another.

• The metering and regulation station is not an air contamination source; does not emit NOx.

– Adopting PennFuture’s definition would be contrary to public policy and interfere with a coherent PADEP policy on single source determinations.

• Cause a “chilling effect” on construction of new and modified industrial facilities throughout the state, such that the regulated community will be left with no certainty on key environmental issues.

• PADEP’s proper permitting decisions and guidance would necessarily be overturned.

# PennFuture v. Ultra Resources

• March 2014

– PennFuture files its opposition brief

– Disputed issues of fact exists.

– Summit is distinguishable: Ultra Resources’ Marshlands Play is 13 square miles less than the area occupied by the facilities in Summit where court remanded.

– Functional interdependency is not an alternative to proximity but an additional factor to consider.

– The compressor stations are interrelated because they collectively function as a production unit that delivers gas to Dominion’s transmission pipeline through the metering and regulation station.

– The Summit decision is “unworkable” and has been rejected by USEPA and the PA EHB.

• A strict proximity approach does not eliminate consideration of other factors; just as subjective as adjacency.

• Citing MarkWest , argues that the PA EHB rejected Summit because the EHB allowed evidence of functional interdependency.

• Notes that USEPA refuses to apply Summit outside the Sixth Circuit; Court not bound..

• Apr. 21, 2014

– Oral argument held on summary judgment motion

## National Fuel Gas Midstream/Seneca Resources NFG Midstream is wholly owned by National Fuel Gas Midstream Corp., which is a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co.; Seneca is a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co. 

### SRC Tionesta Station Facility (EHB 2013 - 113 - B)

• PADEP aggregated emissions from the SRC Tionesta Compressor Station and the NFG Tionesta Interconnect Facility (dehydration unit and generator) as a single source.

• PADEP arguments:

– existence of a support relationship; differences in SIC codes, therefore, irrelevant;

– facilities were on “one property ” ( l ocated 200

- 300 ft apart);

– support relationship and contractual / financial agreements established common control even though they did not meet the SEC’s definition of “control”; and

– facilities functioned together to create a single common product meeting the “common sense notion of a plant.”

• July 2013

– SRC appealed to EHB

• Sept. 2013

– EHB grants NFG Midstream petition to intervene

### NFG Midstream, Bodine Compressor Station (EHB 2013 - 206 - B)

• PADEP aggregated emissions of the NFG Bodine Compressor Station and SRC Well Pad E.

• PADEP arguments:

– Straight

- line distance between Well Pad E and Compressor Station: 0.24 miles; no physical boundary between the two sites.

– existence of a support relationship because the gas would be conveyed, dehydrated, and metered by the Bodine Compressor Station;

– the support relationship overrode the difference in SIC codes; and

– common control prong met because both SRC and NFG Midstream are owned by National Fuel Gas Company and based on a contract between SRC and NFG Midstream.

• Nov. 12, 2013

– NFG Midstream appealed

• Apr. 30, 2014

– EHB grants SRC petition to intervene 

## National Fuel Gas Midstream/Seneca Resources NFG Midstream is wholly owned by National Fuel Gas Midstream Corp., which is a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co.; Seneca is a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co.NFG Midstream Mt. Jewett (EHB 2013 - 123) SRC Mt. Jewett (EHB 2013 - 124)

• PADEP aggregated emissions from the SRC Mt. Jewett Pad G Station and NFG Midstream Mt. Jewett Interconnect Facility

– SRC compressor station and NFG gas dehydrator and generator located “on one property,” but in separate counties

– Boundaries of SRC compressor station and the pertinent ROWs for NFG Midstream Interconnect Facility separated by approx. 1.38 miles

.

• PADEP Arguments:

– Found the sources should be aggregated for the same reasons cited in the SRC Tionesta case (sit on the same property, support relationship existed such that SIC differences irrelevant, common control present as evidenced by contractual and financial relationships, and facilities function to create a single common product meeting the “common sense notion of a plant”).

• Aug. 21, 2013

– Appeals filed separately by NFG and SRC

• May 1, 2014

– cases consolidated into one action (EHB 2013

- 123) 

## National Fuel Gas Midstream/Seneca Resources NFG Midstream is wholly owned by National Fuel Gas Midstream Corp., which is a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co.; Seneca is a subsidiary of National Fuel Gas Co.

### GP - 70 Application Guidance (Oct. 2013, rev, Feb. 2014)

– Three

- Prong Test : (1) **Same Industrial Grouping.** (same two (2)

- digit SIC code). (2) **Common control.** (3) **Contiguous or Adjacent Properties.** The sources are located on one or more “contiguous or adjacent” properties

• “Case by case” determinations based on the relationship between the activities in question (same industrial grouping, common control).

• Recites dictionary definitions:

• Contiguous

– being in actual contact; touching along a boundary or at a point

• Adjacent

– not distant; nearby; having common endpoint or border; “Contiguous” or “adjacent” are proximity based

• No defined distance. 

# West Virginia Guidance

# West Virginia Admin Decisions

• West Virginia

– Appalachia Midstream Services (August 6, 2011)

– The West Virginia Air Quality Board dismissed the appeal of two permits on the grounds that aggregation was not necessary because there was no evidence presented that the two compressor stations operated interdependently.



### • Williams Ohio Valley Midstream

– Woodruff Dehy Station Dehydration Facility (WVDEP Engineering Eval., Jan. 30, 2014)

– WV DEP declined to aggregate emissions with local gas wells

. 1. Dehydration facility had same SIC as upstream gas wells. 2. The production wells were owned and operated by unaffiliated companies. 3. Although located in close proximity to the wells, it was not necessary that the facility be located in the immediate vicinity such that it could be moved.

# West Virginia Admin Decisions

• Stone Energy Corporation

– Mills Wetzel Well Pad 3 (WV DEP Engineering Eval., Dec. 2, 2013)

– Proposed facility was a natural gas well pad that would receive and manage raw natural gas and associated produced fluids from the wells at the site. After separation of the liquids, the gas would be injected into a gathering line owned by others (Eureka Hunter Pipeline, LLC) for transportation to Stone Energy’s Carbide Compressor Station.

– Emissions from well pad, wells, and equipment aggregated.

• same SIC

• common owner

• located at a contiguous property

– No aggregation with other well pads because no gas from other wells would be routed to or away from the new facility.

– No aggregation with the receiving Carbide Compressor Station.

• same SIC code

• completely separate ownership

• located 2.1 miles from the new facility

# New York

• New York does not have a formal written policy/guidance document to address aggregation of air emissions for oil and gas facilities.

• 2011 Revised Draft SGEIS includes the only NYSDEC policy statement on aggregation related to the oil and gas industry.

• Still a work in progress; industry and environmental NGOs have commented.

• Final SGEIS likely to have changes based on public comments and the passage of time/evolution of issue in other jurisdictions.



### • NOTE: New York has not always agreed with USEPA on source determinations unrelated to the oil and gas industry.

# New York rdSGEIS Appendix 18 of the rdSGEIS:

– Cites primarily to USEPA determinations and guidance as well as to a Colorado Order.

– Released prior to Sixth Circuit’s Summit Decision.

– NYSDEC notes that no specific distance has been established that would make sources adjacent.

# New York rdSGEIS

• Recognizes that interdependence: 1. is a factor that is not part of the PSD or Title V definitions of “source,” and 2. “in the context of oil and gas infrastructure, it may have reduced relevance to an agency determination” (quoting a Colorado Order granting a petition to object).



### • States that “to be thorough,” NYSDEC staff will evaluate the nature of the relationship between the facilities and the degree of interdependence between them to determine whether the non

- contiguous emissions points should be aggregated.

• cites EPA’s Summit determination (2010)

# New York rdSGEIS

• Interdependence requires that two activities rely on each other

– not just that one activity relies on the other activity.

• If activities operate independently and one activity does not act solely as a support operation for the other, the activities should not be deemed contiguous or adjacent.



### • NYSDEC will use the following questions, and others to inform its source determinations:

• Whether materials will be routinely transferred back and forth between the facilities;

• Whether the location of the facility was chosen because of proximity;

• Whether workers will be shared; and

• Whether the production process will be split.



### • NYSDEC indicates that some of these questions may not be relevant for oil and gas industry determinations.

# V. Conclusion

Current State of the Law

# Current State of the Law

• USEPA : “EPA does not intend to change its longstanding practice of considering interrelatedness in the EPA permitting actions in other jurisdictions”

• i.e. PA, NY and WV



### • Pennsylvania
– 1⁄4 rule of thumb; greater than 1⁄4 mile, then case - by

- case determination

• West Virginia
– no defined distance, case

- by

- case determination

• New York
– no formal/adopted policy statement

# VI. Questions

# Contact Information

Yvonne E. Hennessey Hiscock & Barclay, LLP 80 State Street Albany, New York 12207 518.429.4293 yhennessey@hblaw.com

http://hblaw.com/blog/energymatters/