By
Mike
Nasi and
Jacob
Arechiga Last week saw two
developments regarding EPA's regulation of
greenhouse gases. On February 24, 2014, the
Supreme Court of the United States heard oral
arguments in
Utility Air Regulatory Group v.
the Environmental Protection Agency and
consolidated cases (
UARG v. EPA). The
case concerned industry and state challenges to
EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting
regulations, including whether EPA's
stationary-source GHG permit requirements
complied with the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA).
While the Court considers EPA's GHG
permitting rules, EPA is proceeding with its
development of GHG New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS). NSPS are nationwide standards
that apply to particular source types. EPA's
first GHG NSPS targets new power plants, with a
planned June adoption date, at which time it
intends to propose an NSPS regime for existing
power plants under Section 111(d) of the FCAA.
EPA has also stated its intention to move on to
refineries and numerous other industries,
perhaps even commercial facilities or other
comparatively small emitters of GHGs.
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument
The Supreme Court
UARG v. EPA
posed a narrow question to the parties: whether
EPA's determination that regulation of GHG
emissions from motor vehicles appropriately
triggered permitting requirements for
"stationary sources" of GHGs under the Clean Air
Act's prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) and Title V permitting programs.
Stationary sources can be virtually any
facility, structure, and/or building that emits
certain air pollutants over threshold levels set
at either 250 or 100 tons per year (tpy),
depending on the pollutant. In the case of GHG
emissions, these threshold levels would have
brought even small restaurants, schools, and
businesses into EPA's permitting regime.
Claiming that this would lead to an "absurd
result," EPA crafted a series of rules that
modified the traditional regulation of
pollutants under the Clean Air Act, including
most significantly, the "tailoring rule," where
EPA moved the emissions threshold permitting
trigger from 250/100 tpy to 75,000 tpy for GHGs,
in most instances.
While the Court may
have posed a narrow question on EPA's
determination to regulate emissions from
stationary sources, oral arguments took a
broader tone. The Court looked to key and
fundamental elements of EPA's rulemaking,
including the legitimacy of the tailoring rule.
Justices were skeptical of both industry/state
petitioner and EPA arguments on whether EPA took
appropriate action. This included Justice
Kennedy, the traditional "swing vote" of the
Court noting that he "couldn’t find a single
precedent that strongly supported" the EPA's
position.
Despite some skepticism on
EPA's method of developing GHG permitting
programs, the Court did not take the opportunity
to discuss limiting the Court's decisions in
Massachusetts v. EPA and
American
Electric Power Company v. Connecticut – the
two decisions that underpin EPA's authority to
regulate GHGs. Further, the Court did not review
the threshold issues of whether EPA can control
GHG emissions from mobile sources or whether the
Clean Air Act contemplated or authorized EPA's
control of GHG emissions from stationary
sources.
Importantly, while this case
was not a challenge of the new power plant NSPS
rule, the decision could significantly impact
how EPA proceeds with its NSPS GHG rules. The
Court at the oral argument did not discuss the
validity of any specific components of an NSPS
rule, including EPA's reliance on an assumed
commercial availability of CCS technology. It
will likely not do so in its ultimate written
decision. However, it is still quite possible
that the Court will provide a clearer picture on
the degree of deference that EPA has in
promulgating GHG rules and/or provide
instructive language on potential limitations to
EPA's authority and methods in regulating GHGs
through NSPS regulations and beyond.
Oral arguments are often not an accurate
indicator of how the Court will decide a case,
with Justices sometimes ruling in complete
opposite of the apparent positions taken in oral
argument. Therefore, we will not know the
ultimate fate of EPA's greenhouse gas permitting
program in this country until this summer, when
the Court is expected to publish its opinion.
What is clear, though, is that the Court's
decision will likely significantly impact the
regulation of greenhouse gases in America for
years to come and affect future legal
challenges, including to EPA's NSPS rules.
NSPS Regulation of GHGs: Extension of
Comment Period for EPA's New Power Plant Rule
Proposal and Associated Notice of Data
Availability on Carbon Capture &
Sequestration Technology On February
26, 2014, EPA issued an extension on the comment
periods for its new power plant NSPS and an
associated Notice of Data Availability (NODA) on
information explaining EPA's methodology in
determining the commercial availability of
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)
technology. Comments will now be due May 9,
2014.
We have previously summarized the
content of EPA's new power plant NSPS last fall,
available
here. This
included a detailed discussion on EPA's
imposition of emissions limits that require the
installation of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
technology at any newly constructed coal-fired
power plants.
Although the rule proposal
was unofficially released in September 2013, it
was not officially published in the Federal
Register until January 2014. One of the major
controversies surrounding this proposal is EPA's
assertion that CCS has been adequately
demonstrated.
The Clean Air Act requires
that, before a technology can be used to
establish emissions limits under an NSPS, the
technology must be established as a best system
of emissions reduction (BSER) that has been
adequately demonstrated. There has been
significant debate, including hearings at the
U.S. Capitol, whether CCS meets this standard.
Two central elements to this debate have been:
1) CCS has yet to reach commercial full-scale
operation at any power plant in the world and 2)
EPA has relied, almost exclusively, on
under-construction projects that have received
significant federal funding, including funding
provided under the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of
2005.
The EPACT includes, in part:
|
"No
technology, or level of emission reduction,
solely by reason of the use of the technology,
or the achievement of the emission reduction,
by one or more facilities receiving
assistance under this Act, shall be considered
to be…adequately demonstrated for purposes of
section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7411)." |
|
EPA
published the NODA, and associated technical
support document, to address its reliance on
EPACT funded projects. EPA expanded on the
justifications outlined in the rule proposal
that CCS is adequately demonstrated. This
includes focusing on the use of the word
"solely" in EPACT. In EPA's interpretation, the
term "solely" means that EPACT does "not
preclude EPA from relying on the experience of
such facilities in conjunction with other
information" and that EPA "may rely on such
projects for its BSER determination if there is
additional evidence supporting such a
determination." As part of the comment period
that has now been extended to May 9, EPA is
seeking comment on the EPACT provisions, its
interpretation of those provisions, and the
process it used to establish CCS as BSER.
Numerous comments will be filed on both
sides of this issue, including whether EPACT
prevents EPA from relying on EPACT-funded
projects to establish BSER. However, this issue
likely won't be settled for at least a few
years, as it will take time to finalize the rule
and then proceed through litigation. If EPA does
go forward with CCS as a the selected
technology, it will likely become a requirement
for numerous other industries, potentially
including refining, chemical manufacturing, and
others.
For more information, please contact
Mike
Nasi (
mnasi@jw.com
or 512.236.2216) or
Jacob
Arechiga (
jarechiga@jw.com
or 512.236.2049).