Source: https://eem.jacksonkelly.com/climate-change-headlines/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:25:52+00:00

Document:
Most environmental statutes passed in the 1970s contain a fee-shifting provision that awards citizens attorney fees if they bring suit to address alleged violations of environmental laws and prevail in some way. Such provisions were designed to give average citizens – who might not otherwise have access to the legal system -- the means to act as “private attorneys general” who enforce environmental laws.
The end result of this fundraising bonanza will likely be more citizen suits against coal, oil or natural gas companies that don’t have litigation budgets anywhere near the size of those of the Sierra Club or similar groups. On top of that, these target defendants might be forced to pay the ENGOs’ attorney fees at the end of the day. Arming Goliath to fight David was probably not what Congress intended when it enacted fee-shifting provisions in the 1970s.
The Obama Administration first released a draft version of the “Clean Power Plan” rules for existing coal-fired electric generating plants in June of 2014. A coalition of industry and states immediately filed suit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (the Clean Air Act provides for direct review of rules in that appeals court) to block implementation of the rule, but that initial challenge was denied as premature.
EPA finalized the Clean Power October 23, 2015. The final rule created a CO2 budget for states that cannot be met by existing coal-fired units. Instead, the rule depends on widespread “trading” by which states can meet their budgets only if coal-fired units are not run and power is generated by gas or renewable sources.
Donald Trump was highly critical of the Clean Power Plan during his presidential campaign. Shortly, after taking office, President Trump signed an Executive Order, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” § 1(c), 82 (Fed. Reg. 16,093 (Mar. 28, 2017)), which required federal agencies to immediately suspend, revise, or rescind existing regulations that unduly burden domestic energy production. The executive order became President Trump’s first step towards fulfilling his campaign promise of rescinding the Clean Power Plan. Next, the President directed the Justice Department to ask the D.C. Circuit Court to forego or postpone consideration of the challenges to the Clean Power Plan. In March 2017, EPA filed a motion to hold the case in abeyance pending its review and forthcoming rulemaking. The D.C. Circuit Court granted a 60 day abeyance in April 2017, with a 60 day extension by order dated August 8, 2017. The Circuit Court directed EPA to file status reports at 30-day intervals.
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (holding that greenhouse gases fit the Clean Air Act’s definition of “air pollutants”) and EPA’s December 2009 Clean Air Act § 202(a) “endangerment finding” regarding GHGs, EPA is required to regulate GHGs. Thus, it cannot simply rescind the Clean Power Plan without putting forth an alternative.
EPA’s most recent status report is noteworthy because the agency represents that it has begun the interagency review process of the alternative to the Clean Power Plan and has transmitted a draft proposed rule to the OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”). Once OIRA and EPA finish their internal review of the draft rule, the EPA Administrator will sign the proposed rule, and EPA publish it in the Federal Register for public comment. EPA reports that the proposed rule will likely be signed in the Fall of 2017. Given the controversy surrounding regulation of greenhouse gases, EPA’s proposed alternative to the Clean Power Plan will likely generate a great deal of public comments. Moreover, once the new rules are finalized, they will undoubtedly be the subject of yet another round of legal challenges.
Several years ago, Murray Energy sued EPA in the Northern District of West Virginia under § 304(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, which authorizes actions against EPA when it fails to perform an act or duty “which is not discretionary.” Murray sought to enjoin further rulemaking by EPA and the implementation of the Clean Power Plan until EPA explored the impacts of its Clean Air Act programs on the coal and energy-producing industries. Murray argued that § 321(a) of the Clean Air Act imposed a nondiscretionary duty on EPA to conduct the studies.
The statute Murray relied on provides that EPA “shall conduct continuing evaluations of potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of the [Clean Air Act] and applicable implementation plans.” We have written extensively about this case before. In October 2016, District Court Judge Bailey ruled in Murray’s favor and ordered EPA to conduct an analysis in accordance with a rigid schedule. He rejected arguments that previous studies EPA prepared for different purposes were sufficient to discharge this obligation.
On appeal, however, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It ruled that § 321(a) vests EPA with considerable discretion as to the scope of the studies necessary and their timing. This discretion, it ruled, divested the district court of jurisdiction to entertain a case which depended on Murray’s claim that EPA had violated a “nondiscretionary” duty.
According to a recent publication by Inside Climate News, a group claiming to have played a pivotal role in the efforts to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, is here to help wage war against the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. A group known as Bold Alliance bills itself as a network of “small and mighty” groups in rural states (Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana and Oklahoma), which “fight fossil fuel projects, protect landowners against eminent domain abuse, and work for clean energy solutions while building an engaged base of citizens who care about the land, water and climate change.” The group has recently announced that it now has “Three Pipeline Fighter Positions” available in the Appalachian Region (specifically West Virginia and Virginia); the Great Lakes Region (Wisconsin and Minnesota) and Indian Country.
The “Pipeline Fighters” are billed as the advance guard of the Bold Alliance who will be “the principle point of coordination with other local and national groups fighting pipelines in the region.” In the Appalachian Region the Pipeline Fighters “will have a specific focus on organizing landowners along proposed pipeline routes.” Specifically, their tasks will include: 1) “identifying and creating a list of landowners” along the proposed routes and connecting them through at least an email list; 2) organizing several landowner meetings to develop trust among pipeline opponents; and 3) creating a legal structure similar to one adopted in Nebraska where landowners pooled resources with one legal team to protect their property rights.
See hyperlinks for more information about Bold Alliance and its founder, Jane Kleeb. Ms. Kleeb addressed an anti-pipeline summit sponsored by the Allegheny Blue Ridge Alliance at Natural Bridge, Virginia in November.
A RCRA citizen suit claim that Exxon’s operation of its terminal presents an “imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment” because sea level rise, increased precipitation and flooding from severe storms will result in releases of solid or hazardous wastes into the environment and surrounding residential communities (first cause of action). The immanency of the supposed hazards are not immediately apparent.
A Clean Water Act citizen claim that Exxon has failed to develop and implement a storm water pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) designed to reduce or prevent the discharge of pollutants in stormwater because of its failure to address rising sea level, increased precipitation and increased magnitude and frequency of storm events. Likewise, the Complaint alleges that Exxon unlawfully certified the SWPPP as meeting the requirements of the permit when it failed to disclose information in its possession regarding climate change-induced sea rise, increased precipitation and increased storm activity (fifth and sixth causes of action).
There are other more pedestrian claims in the Complaint relating to actual discharges of pollutants, but the majority of the 295 paragraphs of the Complaint are devoted to claims that Exxon failed to adjust its permits and facilities to known climate risks. Undoubtedly, the plaintiffs will attempt to use the case to conduct discovery from Exxon as part of a widespread effort to characterize ExxonMobil as a climate-change denier villain.
The Sierra Club and its acolytes have openly derided those who advocate using gas as a “bridge fuel.” Now, the group seeks to slow the construction of both a new gas-fired power plant in Virginia and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline slated to provide fuel to the Plant. The Appalachian Mountain Advocates (“Appalmad”), who serve frequently as counsel to the Sierra Club, have bragged openly that “we’ve been highly effective … at the forefront of the fight against coal for 15 years”—“the natural gas industry is next.” They have been quoted as saying that the construction of gas-fired power plants and pipelines is unnecessary and should be opposed because it delays and reduces spending on renewable energy sources.
The Sierra Club and Appalmad have now teamed up to challenge a new air permit issued in Virginia. After claiming that their earlier efforts caused the permit agency to impose conditions limiting emissions from the plant (“Groups Force Stronger Pollution Protections on Dominion’s Proposed Fracked-Gas Plant”), they have challenged the permit they claim to have influenced.
In June, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources obtained an air permit from the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board for a new combined cycle natural gas-fired power plant (Greensville County Power Station). According to the Sierra Club, the permit application conceded that the Station was a “major stationary source” of the so-called criteria pollutants (NOx, particulates, VOCs, carbon monoxide, sulfuric acid mist and greenhouse gases). Consistent with the Clean Air Act and the approved Virginia air program, those emissions were subjected to “new source review,” which triggered application of a program called the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (“PSD”).
PSD permits require applicants to demonstrate that they will apply “best available control technology” (“BACT”) by conducting a BACT analysis. That analysis requires the applicant and agency to start with the most stringent technologies and work down the list of controls only after finding that the more stringent controls are unavailable because of technical, energy, environmental or economic considerations. The BACT analysis rejected control of greenhouse gases after determining that the only candidate technologies were carbon capture and sequestration, lower carbon fuels and energy efficiency.
The application did not identify the Plant as a major source of “hazardous air pollutants” such as formaldehyde. According to the Sierra Club, the applicant used EPA’s standard emissions projections (called “emissions factors”) to project emissions for all hazardous pollutants except for formaldehyde. The applicant projected formaldehyde emissions using information from the manufacturer of the gas turbines, which yielded lower projected emissions than did EPA’s “emission factors.” This, according to the Sierra Club, may have allowed the applicant to escape control based on the application of “maximum achievable control technology” or “MACT”) (kind of a BACT for hazardous air pollutants).
Finally, the Sierra Club noted that Dominion did not include expected emissions associated with either the planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline or its associated Buckingham County compressor station in the application for the Plant permit, even though the pipeline will be operated by Dominion and supply gas to the Plant. By not aggregating the emissions from the compressor station with those of the Plant, the Sierra Club claims Dominion has been allowed to treat the compressor station as a “minor” source for air permitting purposes—a fact which will allow it to escape the BACT and MACT reviews applicable to “major” sources.
That the Board’s written permit decision fails to provide a clear and concise statement of its legal bases and justification and contains only conclusory statements.
That the Board failed to ensure the Plant was not a major source of formaldehyde for purposes of applying the MACT standards for hazardous air pollutants. The Sierra Club says the Board did not consider whether the estimates supplied by Dominion included emissions during low/intermediate load operations or during startup/shutdown or malfunctions and, therefore, inadequately analyzed the Plant’s “potential to emit” formaldehyde.
In the oil and gas industry, EPA and private litigants have tried to aggregate the emissions from numerous small and physically disconnected sites that are interconnected by pipelines for the purpose of imposing the more stringent permitting obligations applicable to “major sources” on them by arguing that while not physically adjacent (i.e., in close proximity) to one another, these sources were “functionally interrelated.” In recent years, courts have rejected these efforts. See discussions here and here. In 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected EPA’s “functional interrelatedness” interpretation of the word “adjacent” as used in its Title V and PSD regulations. After that ruling, EPA issued a policy directive to its Regional Administrators to apply different standards to sources of air pollution depending on whether they were located in states within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction (which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee). This led to confusion and uncertainty, and the policy directive was eventually struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014.
On September 18, 2015 EPA proposed a new rule that is intended to clarify the term “adjacent” as used in the definition of “building, structure, facility or installation” in its PSD regulations and in the definition of “major source” in its Title V regulations, both of which are used to determine which sources in the oil and natural gas sector may be aggregated for the purposes of identifying a single stationary source. See 80 Fed. Reg. 56,579 (Sept. 18, 2015). In its new proposal, EPA suggests two options for determining whether smaller oil and gas sources are “adjacent” for purposes of aggregating their emissions. The first option would define “adjacent” only in terms of proximity. The second option would allow the term “adjacent” to be defined in terms of either proximity or functional interrelatedness.
The first option would add language to EPA’s regulations clarifying that “adjacent” means “pollutant emitting activities” that “are located on the same surface site, or on surface sites that are located within ¼ mile of one another[.]” Under this option, only physical proximity would be considered when determining whether multiple sources will be aggregated, and a bright line would be drawn at ¼ mile. Somewhat surprisingly, given EPA’s prior policies, this is EPA’s “preferred option.” However, EPA has also proposed an alternative option, which would add language to its regulations clarifying that “pollutant emitting activities” would be considered “adjacent” if they are either “separated by a distance of less than ¼ mile” or “separated by a distance of ¼ mile or more and there is an exclusive functional interrelatedness.” Under this option, smaller sources would be aggregated into a single stationary source if they are “functionally interrelated,” regardless of the distance between them.
EPA is accepting public comments on these options until November 17, 2015.
This article was authored by Robert McLusky and Jennifer Hughes.
A recent publication reported that researchers have found a “link” between hydraulic fracturing and increased hospitalization rates in the Marcellus shale drilling regions of Pennsylvania.
Cause for alarm? Not so fast.
As one can see from the graph, the correlation between global warming and piracy is a strong one. But, is the Earth warming because pirates are decreasing? Of course not. Unfortunately, though, many media sources and public interest groups often blur the line between correlation and causation when it comes to energy production.
Also, it’s worth noting that the study doesn’t actually prove hydraulic fracturing to be the cause of the aforementioned health problems, as the study’s author’s note that the increased hospitalized rates were observed over a relatively short period of time . . .
Sadly, this critical information on causation—buried in the final paragraph of the story as something “worth noting”—is completely absent from many similar news stories relating to health effects and energy production.
The coal industry has struggled with this problem for years. One particularly prolific researcher, Dr. Michael Hendryx, formerly with West Virginia University, has published over twenty papers claiming “links” between coal mining and various health problems, including cancer, heart disease, learning outcomes, birth defects and depression. However, Dr. Hendryx—who has avoided efforts to review his underlying data—has never explained the mechanism through which coal mining supposedly “causes” any of these problems.
Indeed, the “links” found by Dr. Hendryx often defy scientific explanation. One recent Hendryx paper suggested that dust generated by coal mining contained high levels (28%) of molybdenum that might be causing “tumor progression.” Geologists scoffed. Hendryx—a psychologist by training—was seemingly unaware that molybdenum is a very rare element, making up well below 1% of the composition of West Virginia’s soils. In other words, the notion that high levels of molybdenum were causing “tumor progression” in West Virginia’s coal fields was implausible.
Nevertheless, even though these and other concerns have been raised about the work of Dr. Hendryx (Link), media sources and anti-coal groups alike have cited his work for the proposition that coal mining is leading to health impacts in Appalachia.
Similar research is being aimed at the oil and gas industry. Recent studies have suggested “links” between fracking and various health issues. A June 2015 study, “Prenatal Outcomes and Unconventional Natural Gas Operations in Southwest Pennsylvania,” purported to find a correlation between fracking and “lower birth weights” for newborns. Notably, the researchers in the study clarified that the associations they found “do not imply causation and are hypothesis generating only.” Nevertheless, online publications like “EcoWatch” described the study as “alarming” and “disturbing.” See Link. Even the mainstream internet site “WebMD” covered the story, with little attention to the researcher’s disclaimers about causation. See Link.
We have been following the literature studying alleged health impacts from the coal and oil and gas industries. If you would like more information about these studies, please contact us.

References: § 1
 v. 
 § 202
 § 304
 § 321
 § 321