Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:50 pm by Tim Wilkins and Charles Nixon
On April 17, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations became effective, establishing the framework for a new GHG permitting program at TCEQ, which the agency hopes to begin implementing in the summer of 2014. Before this can happen, EPA must officially approve the rules and also rescind the Federal Implementation Plan under which it currently regulates GHGs in Texas.
The rules have immediate implications for a variety of facilities, however. Whereas the changes to the PSD program only involve new or modified facilities, the Title V aspects of the rules affect both new and existing facilities. Any existing facility with a “potential to emit” GHGs above EPA’s “major source” thresholds will have to either obtain a Title V permit or certify to TCEQ that its actual emissions are below the thresholds (found in 30 Tex. Admin. Code § 122.10(14)(H)). The timing of this certification depends on whether the facility currently has a Title V permit for non-GHG emissions. (more…)
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Enforcement, Environmental, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Power
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:22 pm by Sandra Snyder, Richard Alonso, Salo Zelermyer and Dee Martin
By way of update to last month’s client alert, on April 15, 2014, EPA released five white papers that discuss methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the oil and gas sector. The release of the white papers is part of the White House’s Climate Action Plan Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions.
The white papers cover emissions from five types of emission sources:
- Well completions and production from hydraulically fractured wells
- Liquids unloading
- Pneumatic devices (more…)
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Enforcement, Environmental, Midstream, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Shale Development, Upstream Energy
Tuesday, April 8, 2014 3:06 pm by Sandra Snyder
On Monday, April 7, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Monroe Energy v. EPA, No. 13-1265, which challenges the 2013 renewable fuels standards (RFS). Judges Rogers, Griffith, and Pillard presided over the argument. Monroe Energy, an independent refiner, and trade associations API and AFPM challenged the 2013 RFS. PBF Holding Company LLC intervened on behalf of Petitioners, and multiple parties intervened on behalf of EPA. (more…)
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Courts, Enforcement, Environmental, Litigation, National Energy Law, Renewable Energy/Cleantech
Monday, April 7, 2014 12:55 pm by Lowell Rothschild
Last week we discussed various elements of the U.S. EPA’s and Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed rule redefining Waters of the United States. Today, we note a potentially wide-ranging impact of the rule regarding the identification of wetlands.
Wetlands can be difficult for laypersons to identify, as some are wet for as little as 5-12% of the growing season. In mountainous areas of northern states, that can be as little as 4 days, so for much of the year they can be completely dry. But wetlands are regulated like other waters and require a permit before they can be disturbed. As a result, the greater the acreage of jurisdictional wetlands there are on a particular property, the more complex the permitting process will be. (more…)
Category: Courts, Enforcement, Environmental, Litigation, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Regional Energy Law, Shale Development, Upstream Energy
Friday, April 4, 2014 8:00 am by Tim Wilkins and Grant MacIntyre
We’ve blogged about the scope of EPA’s proposed Waters of the United States rule and whether it provides any additional clarity to the current regulatory scheme. With this post, we’ll start to outline some direct potential impacts on different segments of industry. Today, we briefly examine what an expanded regulatory scope of waters could mean for industries required to comply with the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule under the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act. (more…)
Category: Courts, Environmental, EPAct 2005, Litigation
Thursday, April 3, 2014 8:00 am by Lowell Rothschild
Yesterday, we continued examining the confusion inherent in EPA and the Corps’ proposed rule redefining “Waters of the U.S.” Today we finish that analysis by asking what is left of the Significant Nexus test, if anything.
As we discussed on Monday, the proposed rule tries to have its cake and eat it too. The rule describes certain waters that are deemed always to have a significant nexus – and so are always jurisdictional – but also retains the significant nexus test for use on case-by-case basis. As a reminder, under the proposed rule, “significant nexus” waters are jurisdictional if
alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region. . . [they] significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a [traditionally navigable or interstate water or the territorial seas]
(Our emphasis). This test, which the agencies have been using since 2007 used to be opaque; its place in the new rule makes it even more so. (more…)
Category: Courts, Enforcement, Environmental, Litigation, National Energy Law, Upstream Energy