Category Archives: Air

N.C. General Assembly: 2015 Environmental Bills

April 15, 2015.   The final bill introduction deadline  fell  yesterday for bills that don’t affect finance or appropriations,  so it is a good time  to look at the environmental bills  introduced and awaiting action. The General Assembly can also amend environmental laws  in the budget bill or by completely rewriting a bill on an entirely different subject, but with that warning in mind:

House Bill 795 SEPA Reform  would  greatly  limit the number of  projects requiring an  environmental impact statement (EIS) under the state’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).   Adopted in 1971, SEPA requires an  EIS  for projects that potentially have a significant environmental impact, need a state approval (such as a permit), and involve either the use of public funds or use of public lands.  Unlike its federal counterpart (the National Environmental Policy Act  or “NEPA”), the state law  has never applied to  privately funded development projects no matter how significant the environmental impact. To require an EIS under the state law, there must be public investment ( which could mean either state or local government funding) or use of public land.  Typical projects requiring an EIS in the past would be  a new wastewater treatment plant; a county landfill; a major development project on state-owned submerged lands; or activities on state parkland.

House Bill 795 proposes to  limit SEPA review  to projects involving $20 million or more in public funding or land-disturbing activity affecting 20 acres or more of public land.   It is difficult to know what percentage of projects required to do an EIS in the past would avoid  SEPA review under the amended law, but it is reasonable to assume that many public  projects fall below the $20 million threshold. Controversial proposals for use of state parks and tidelands could also avoid SEPA review because — whatever the other impacts of the project —  an EIS would only be required for land-disturbing activity that permanently alters the landscape and affects 20 acres or more. For projects that exceed the new size and funding thresholds, House Bill 795 provides additional  SEPA exemptions  for projects receiving  certain types of state approvals. Some of the approvals listed in the bill, such as a certificate of convenience and necessity for a  public utility infrastructure project,  do not  involve  any environmental review.  (That particular exemption also doesn’t seem to serve a purpose;   the “public utilities” that need a certificate of convenience and necessity are by definition not owned or operated by a governmental  entity and  don’t involve public funds.)

For projects that would still require an EIS under the amended law, the bill also limits the scope of the EIS.  Under the bill,  the EIS would only describe direct project impacts — eliminating consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts.

Projects  exempted from the EIS requirement would still need  any necessary environmental permits, but permit reviews tend to be more narrow than an EIS. The EIS looks beyond one set of permitting standards to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project as a whole — which can include consideration of noise, traffic, endangered species, historic sites, and effects on minority and low income communities as well as natural resource impacts. Projects that require a federal permit could still trigger NEPA review; what the state may lose is an opportunity for the same comprehensive review and public input on projects that do not require a federal permit —  which may include some landfill projects and inter-basin transfers.

THE OMNIBUS BILLS (AMEND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATORY REFORM)

In every recent legislative session, the General Assembly has enacted an Amend Environmental Laws bill  and a Regulatory Reform bill. Both bills become vehicles  for multiple changes to environmental laws. See an earlier post for a description of Senate Bill 453, the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015.

At the moment, House Bill 593 (Amend Environmental Laws-2) only  contains provisions amending  state law on reimbursement of third-party damage claims by the state’s petroleum underground storage tank (UST)  trust funds.  (The UST trust funds can reimburse UST owners for up to $1,000,000 in third-party claims for property damage or personal injury resulting from a petroleum release.)  The amendments require the UST owner to provide specific documentation of the third party damage claim; add definitions of “third party”, “bodily injury” and “property damage”;  and provide more  direction on how to calculate  compensation for  property damage.

It is the  nature of  both the Regulatory Reform and Amend Environmental Laws bill to pick up baggage as the session goes along.  Expect new versions of each bill  as the bills move through committee.

Note: This bill is Amend Environmental Laws-2 because  House Bill 157 (Amend Environmental Laws) has already been enacted into law as Session Law 2015-1. H 157 generally made uncontroversial and technical changes to solid waste laws, the Coal Ash Management Act and other environmental laws. The one provision in H 157 that  created some controversy amended a state law requiring the Environmental Management Commission to adopt air toxics rules for hydraulic fracturing sites.The bill replaced the requirement with language authorizing the EMC to adopt  air toxics  standards for fracking sites  if necessary to protect public health, safety, welfare and the environment.

AIR QUALITY

Senate Bill 303  Protect Safety/Wellbeing of N.C. Citizens  prohibits state enforcement of any federal standards for wood heaters used for home heating.  The bill  is interesting as an example of  state legislation intended to nullify  a federal standard.  In February, EPA adopted updated performance standards for wood heaters. Federal air quality rules have included standards for wood heaters since 1988; the new rule updates the standards to reflect changes in technology and to  regulate  wood-burning boilers and wood-burning furnaces as well as wood stoves.   The  revised  standards only apply to newly manufactured wood heaters, phase in over several years and do not affect fireplaces (at all) or wood heaters already in use.  An EPA fact sheet provides an overview of the rule.  Generally, N.C.’s delegated authority to implement Clean Air Act programs  requires the state  to adopt and enforce federal new source performance standards, but EPA has not delegated enforcement of the wood heater rule to the states.

House Bill 169  Limit Motor Vehicle Inspections  eliminates motor vehicle emissions inspections in six counties  (Burke, Granville, Haywood, Rutherford, Surry and Wilkes). Forty-eight of N.C.’s 100 counties require annual emissions inspections as part of the state’s plan to meet the  federal ozone standard under the Clean Air Act. Recently, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) issued a  report concluding that emissions inspections could be eliminated in as many as 28-31 counties without  violating either the current ozone standard or the stricter ozone standard EPA  will  finalize by the end of the year. Given the DENR report, expect the number of counties  the bill removes from the emission inspection program to increase.  Since the emissions inspection program has been used to meet a federal air quality standard, any change by the General Assembly must have EPA approval.

House Bill 172 Fracking – Protecting the Public requires the Environmental Management Commission to adopt rules establishing best management practices and  leak detection and repair standards to  minimize air emissions from natural gas operations. The bill approaches the related problems of wasted natural gas and  air pollution by focusing on  ways  to minimize unintended releases resulting from leaky equipment or inefficient practices during exploration, development, production, processing and compression of the natural gas.

House Bill 571 Implementation of Carbon Dioxide Regulations requires DENR  to begin work on a plan to comply with new federal regulations reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants. EPA’s Clean Power Plan rule sets a CO2 reduction goal for each state, but states have flexibility in the mix of power plant emission reductions, renewable energy generation, and energy efficiency measures used to meet the goal.  Find  more background on the federal rule here. Each state  must  submit a plan for meeting its   CO2 reduction goal by June 2016, although EPA can extend the deadline if the plan needs legislative approval or relies on a multi-state strategy.  DENR does not appear to have any effort underway to develop a plan. Instead, DENR has both  questioned the legal basis for the federal rule and urged EPA to delay implementation until lawsuits  challenging the rule  have been resolved. House Bill 571 appears to be intended to push DENR to begin  work  on a CO2 reduction plan and do it in a way that provides for  input from both stakeholders and the public.

COAL ASH

House Bill 448 Extend Coal Ash Structural Fill Moratorium  The Coal Ash Management Act of 2014 put new, stricter standards in place for large projects using coal ash as structural fill .  ( “Large” means > 8,000 tons per acre or > 80,000 tons total).   But the law made few change to existing standards for smaller structural fill projects. Instead, the 2014 bill put a moratorium on permitting smaller structural fill projects  until August 1, 2015 to allow time for DENR and the Environmental Management Commission to study the standards for those projects.  The law required a report back  to the General Assembly by January 15, 2015.  The EMC discussed an interim report in  January,  but the interim  report didn’t address the adequacy of existing structural fill standards for small projects. The interim report indicated that a final report would be released in April; it doesn’t appear that a final report has been issued yet.  In the absence of a report on the adequacy of the existing structural fill standards and recommendations, House Bill 448 would extend the moratorium on permitting smaller projects until August 1, 2016.

COASTAL ISSUES

House Bill 151 Property Insurance Ratemaking Reform is not strictly speaking an environmental bill, but deals with use of models projecting catastrophic losses as a result of a hurricane or other natural disaster in setting property insurance rates. The bill would continue to allow use of models, but would require the results of more than one model to support a property insurance rate change.  The bill is interesting given the longstanding tension between the economic benefits of coastal development and the externalized costs of building in natural hazard areas.

House Bill 302 Strengthen Oyster Industry  requires the Division of Marine Fisheries to study the state’s shellfish lease and franchise programs and make recommendations for changes necessary to increase shellfish  aquaculture on the North Carolina coast. The bill also expands on existing law requiring DMF to plan and construct  oyster sanctuaries in the  Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds; sets new civil penalties for interference with oyster cultivation; and makes other changes designed to increase oyster production. State funding for creation of oyster habitat has seen a steep decline in recent years; some additional resources will likely be needed to make the oyster sanctuary program a reality.

House Bill 346 Counties/Public Trust Areas extends to counties the  authority to enforce local ordinances in public trust areas and particularly on the state’s ocean beaches.  Municipalities already have this authority.

CONTAMINATED SITES

Senate Bill 301 DOT/Purchase of Contaminated Land would exempt the N.C. Department of Transportation from a law enacted in 2013 that  effectively prohibited state agencies from purchasing property with environmental contamination.  As noted in a earlier post about the 2013 law,  the General Assembly may not have realized the far-reaching effects.   Environmental contamination is widespread and state policies allowing polluters to do limited, “risk-based” remediation of groundwater contamination mean the contamination will persist well into the future. The 2013 law exempted the UNC system campuses from the restriction; NCDOT has asked for the same exemption — presumably because the law makes acquisition of property for highway construction more difficult.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Senate Bill 397 Open and Fair Competition Water and Wastewater would prevent a state or local government from “preferring” one type of piping material  for use in a  water, sewer or stormwater infrastructure project receiving state funds.  I don’t know the story behind the bill,  but usually legislation attempting to  change a state agency’s policy about  use of a particular product or system has been introduced in response to complaints by  a  vendor.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

The General Assembly’s internal debate over renewable energy development continues. In 2013,  the Republican majority in the General Assembly split over attempts to repeal both the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS) and the state’s tax credit for investment in renewable energy projects. In the end, a bipartisan majority declined to repeal the incentives for renewable energy development — in large part, because renewable energy had become one of the bright spots in the state’s economic recovery. See an earlier post on the end of the 2013 fight over the REPS.

This session, one focus is on the scheduled sunset of the renewable energy tax credit on January 1, 2016. There are bills in both the House and the Senate to extend the tax credit;  House Bill 454  extends the tax credit until January 1, 2021 and Senate Bill 329 extends the tax credit to January 1, 2020.  Opponents of the tax credit have introduced a bill, Senate Bill 372, that essentially retains the existing January 1, 2016 sunset,  but provides a “safe harbor” for investors who have made substantial outlays on projects not  in service  by the sunset date. Those taxpayers would have an additional year  (until January 1, 2017) to claim the tax credit.

UPDATE:  House Bill 681 would sunset the REPS requirement early, ending in 2018  with a  standard requiring  6% of retail sales of electricity to be generated from renewable sources. The current law requires that  electric public utilities generate 12.5% of retail sales from renewable energy source by 2021 and thereafter.

A Citizen’s Guide to Climate Change, Part I: Temperature

January 30,  2015. Controversy over EPA’s proposed carbon reduction rule (see an earlier post)  has again focused attention on the  climate change debate.  This post will look at global  temperature trends as reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA).

The most recent temperature data. In  2014, the average combined land and sea surface temperature on Earth reached the highest level since modern record-keeping began in the 1880s.   The latest temperature data can be found in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)   2014  Global Climate Report here. Similar results reported by  NASA can be found here. Although NOAA and NASA use somewhat different baselines and methods, the two agencies reached very similar results. NASA calculated an increase of 1.4 ° (F) over the historical baseline; NOAA found an increase of 1.24° (F). Both found that higher ocean temperatures made a slightly greater contribution to the total increase than land surface temperatures.

The  chart below has been adapted from a NOAA Chart showing the ten warmest years on record based on the global average temperature. All of those years, with the exception of one, have occurred since 2000.  The third  column shows the increase in temperature by reference to the historical average (1880-2014).

Rank (1=Warmest) Year Increase (Fº)
1  2014  +1.24
2 (Tie) 2010/2005  + 1.17
4 1998  +1.13
5 (Tie) 2013/2003  +1.12
7 2002  +1.10
8 2006  +1.08
9 (Tie) 2009/2007  +1.06

Some temperature fluctuation from year to year can be accounted for by El Nino (warming) and La Nina (cooling) trends in the Pacific Ocean, but the 2014 high occurred under neutral El Nino conditions.  Find the original NOAA chart and other information about NOAA’s  2014 temperature analysis here.

NOAA also provides a bar chart showing the trend in global temperature over the entire period

Comparison to past temperature variation on Earth. Scientists have estimated average global temperature during past warming and cooling  periods based on a variety of natural records — glacial ice, tree rings, geological formations, and fossils. There have been periods in the past when Earth’s average temperature was much higher than it is now.  But once Earth cooled down from a hot rock to  a planet capable of supporting life,  the warming event that followed the last ice age occurred  very slowly.  See NOAA’s  introduction to  climate history here.   The overviews of historical climate studies provided by NOAA and by NASA’s  Climate Observatory  put  context around recent temperature increases:

♦  Earth’s average temperature varies from year to year in response to many influences,  but in recent  decades, the cooler years have represented “noise” in an overall upward trend.

♦ Earth’s climate has been relatively stable for much of the history of human civilization (the past 10,000 years).

♦ The last significant warming period (which  began around 11,000  years ago) led to an increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature of between 7° – 12° F.  That warming occurred very gradually  over a period of about 5,000 years and then another cooling trend began.

♦  The current warming trend began in the 20th century and temperature increases are happening  10  times  times faster than the last  ice age  warming period. (NASA).

For more detail on climate history, both the NASA and NOAA  sites provide links to the scientific studies used as references.

Do these increases in global temperature matter?  An increase of 1.4° F over the average global surface temperature seems — and is —  small, but  even small increases can affect patterns of plant and animal life.  In 2012,  the  U.S. Department of Agriculture released an updated U.S.  plant  hardiness zone map.  The map divides the U.S. into  zones based on the average annual low temperature;  going from north to south, each zone on the map represents  a 10° increase in the average low temperature. By comparison to the 1990 map, the new map shows a half-zone shift (or  5° F) toward the warmer zones. USDA has been careful to say the data sets for the 1990 and 2012 maps differed in a number of ways — the new map reflects data from more  locations and use of more sophisticated technology as well as additional years of data.  But the shifts are consistent with the general trend in global temperature data since the 1980s and suggest that farmers and gardeners  may already be seeing changes affecting plant life.

While a  1.2°- 1.4° increase in the average temperature over 30 years may already be affecting   the environment, concern about rising global temperature really focuses on the future. Two of the greatest concerns:

1. The rapid pace of warming and the unknown stopping point. Earth’s last major ice age warming event took place over a period of 5,000 years and at a time before modern human civilization and reliance on large-scale agricultural production.   Earth’s current  warming  is occurring  at a much faster rate (as much as 10 times faster), increasing the risk that plant and animal life may not be able to adapt quickly enough to changing temperature regimes. While Unites States agriculture has not been harmed by  the  1.2 – 1.4 ° (F) increase in recent decades,  it could be much more difficult to maintain agricultural productivity in the face of continuing, rapid temperature increases.  Other, warmer,  parts of the globe will be much more vulnerable to agricultural disruption because of temperature increases. Temperature increases can also   affect other human food sources like fisheries.

2. The chain-reaction effect of rapid warming on other parts of the human environment. The chain reaction talked about most often:

Higher global temperature ⇒ melting of land ice ⇒more rapidly rising sea levels ⇒ flooding of coastal areas.

The potential for accelerated sea level rise gets attention because of the direct risk to human populations. In 2010, 39%  of the population of the U.S. lived in a shoreline county;  more than half of the population lived within  50  miles of an ocean shoreline. (Source: U.S. census data as reported in NOAA’s State of the Coast Report.)  As a result, accelerated sea level rise could affect some  of the most highly populated areas in the United States.

Note: NASA’s Vital Signs of the Planet website provides visualizations of  changes in the extent of sea ice and land ice.

How reliable is the data?   Temperature records date back to the 1880s and the amount and quality of the data has only gotten better.  NASA describes the records used in the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences temperature calculations this way:

The GISS analysis incorporates surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. This raw data is analyzed using an algorithm that takes into account the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the calculation. The result is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

Next: The role of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gasses in raising global temperature.

North Carolina and EPA’s Proposed Carbon Rule

September 30, 2014. On June 2, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  released  a draft rule to reduce  carbon dioxide (CO2)  emissions from power plants.  Gov. Pat McCrory’s administration has taken a number of opportunities  to  question the legal basis for the  rule. An earlier post described  a presentation by DENR Deputy Secretary Don van der Vaart  to the N.C.  Energy Policy Council soon after EPA  released the draft rule in June.  DENR actually began staking out a position in opposition to the proposed carbon rule even earlier. (See the DENR website for a number of agency policy documents related to the carbon rule.)  Each time, DENR focused on legal arguments — challenging EPA’s authority to regulate a power plant’s CO2  emissions under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act —  rather than the actual impact of the rule on the state and its electric utilities.

Evaluating the impact of the rule on an  individual state can  be challenging because the rule takes an innovative approach to reducing CO2. Instead of putting the burden and cost of CO2 reductions entirely on the power plants,  the rule tries to harness  other  trends in energy generation — increased  reliance on renewable energy;  adoption of  energy efficiency standards for buildings, appliances and equipment; and a shift in generation from coal-fired plants to natural gas units — to help lower CO2 emissions associated with power generation.  Many of those trends developed in response to other environmental concerns (stricter  air quality  standards for ozone and particulates) or economic incentives (the lower cost of natural gas). EPA’s proposed  carbon rule builds on those trends to also drive down CO2 emissions associated with power generation.

Steps  North Carolina has taken over the last 10-15 years to increase renewable energy  generation and energy efficiency seem to put  the state  in a favorable position to meet the CO2 reduction goal in the rule and come out the other side with competitive energy costs.  This post is intended to provide some  (very basic) background on how the rule works and to  identify the questions that need to be answered to understand what more the state may need to do to meet the CO2 reduction goal in the proposed rule.

BASICS OF THE CLEAN CARBON RULE

♦ The rule only addresses CO2 emissions associated with electric generating units (EGUs) that burn fossil fuels; the rule does not affect industrial sources of CO2.

♦ The rule sets a carbon reduction goal for each state in the form of a rate – pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per megawatt hour of electricity generated or CO2/MWh.

♦ Instead of setting a CO2 emission limit for each EGU, EPA proposed a statewide average CO2 emission rate – allowing the goal to be met in part by shifting electric generation from high to low emission units; increasing renewable energy and nuclear generation; and creating “savings” through energy efficiency measures.

♦ The rate is based on net generation (electricity delivered to the grid) rather than gross generation measured at the EGU. Net generation excludes energy used at the power plant to run fans, pumps, motors and pollution control devices.

♦ The rule sets a final goal for each state to meet in 2030 and interim goals for 2020-2029.

♦  CO2 reduction goals differ from state to state. In calculating the goals, EPA considered the existing mix of electric generation facilities in each state (nuclear, coal, natural gas) and each state’s potential for  increased renewable energy generation and growth in energy efficiency savings.

HOW EPA CALCULATED STATE REDUCTION GOALS (THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT)

State goals are not based on simply requiring  fossil-fuel burning power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions per megawatt hour from 2012 levels.  Although  EPA used the EGU’s 2012 reported emissions of CO2 as one factor in calculating  the goals, it is not quite correct to describe 2012 as the “base year” for reductions.   The state goals represent something different — reductions in EGU emissions combined with a shift in electric generation capacity to cleaner sources (such as renewable energy and nuclear power) and increases in energy efficiency. More about the rate calculation below.

To set the state CO2 emission rate goals, the EPA rule adjusted the  2012 calculation of CO2/MWh in two ways:

1. EPA reduced the net CO2 emissions  reported by regulated EGUs in 2012 (the numerator in the CO2/MWh equation) by assuming those units can achieve a 6% improvement in heat efficiency. In states where there are both coal-fired plants and natural gas plants, EPA adjusted the numerator again if any natural gas plant in the state operated at less than 70% utilization. Assuming  every natural gas plant could operate at 70% utilization, EPA shifted a corresponding amount of electricity generation from  coal-fired plants to the underused natural gas plants and and adjusted the pounds of CO2 emitted to reflect the natural gas plants’ lower CO2 emissions rate.

So the numerator in the goal represents pounds of CO2 emitted by  the state’s existing power plants after each individual plant has become more heat efficient and after power generation across the entire system has been  reallocated  to better utilize low-emission natural gas units. Both adjustments reduce the amount of CO2 generated by the EGUs  below the amount actually reported  in 2012.

2. EPA then adjusts the denominator in the CO2/MWh equation to spread the pounds of CO2 generated  by the EGUs across the megawatt hours generated by all electric generating sources in the state and megawatt hours of electric generation saved through energy efficiency measures. The denominator becomes:  total megawatt hours generated by the EGUs + new renewable energy generating capacity + new or preserved nuclear generation capacity + an estimate of annual avoided power generation associated with demand-side energy efficiency.  (“Preserved” nuclear power refers to  an existing nuclear plant operating beyond a previously announced closure date.)

The final 2030 CO2 emissions goal as a rate =

Net CO2 emissions for regulated EGUs – 6% heat efficiency*
Total net MWh (EGUs + renewable energy + new/preserved nuclear + avoided generation)

* In some cases there has also been an adjustment for under-utilized natural gas plants.

Although the rule does not propose CO2 reductions from any baseline year, EPA has estimated the rule will result in a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions as compared to 2005.

THE NORTH CAROLINA CO2 REDUCTION GOAL

The proposed  2030 goal for North Carolina is  992 lbs CO2/ MWh. By comparison, North Carolina’s electric generating units reported 2012  emissions  of  1647 lbs CO2/ MWh. (Source: Congressional Research Service report.) The EPA rule would require North Carolina to reduce CO2 emissions from:

1647 lbs of CO2 per megawatt hour  of electricity generated by fossil fuel EGUs

to

992 lbs of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity generated by fossil fuel EGUs + estimated new renewable energy generation+ new or preserved nuclear capacity+ electricity generation avoided by energy efficiency measures

The Clean Power Plan goal does not require  North Carolina power plants to reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.  The rule requires the state’s  electric generation  system  as a whole to  meet demand for electric power at a 40% lower rate of CO2 emissions.

MEETING THE GOAL

The draft EPA  rule  requires  states to  use four “building blocks” to comply; the building blocks correspond to the factors EPA used to calculate each state’s  CO2 reduction goal:

1. Increased heat efficiency at EGUs —  EPA has  assumed each EGU can achieve  6% improvement in heat efficiency.

2. Increased “dispatch” of power generation from higher emission coal-fired units to lower emission Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants —   EPA has assumed every NGCC  unit can be operated at 70% utilization.

3. Increased generation of electricity from renewable sources and new or preserved nuclear generation.  EPA has estimated the  potential for growth in renewable energy generation and new or preserved nuclear generation individually for each state.

4. Energy efficiency measures to lower demand,  measured by  megawatt hours of generation avoided. EPA set a  goal of increasing demand-side efficiency by 1.5% annually.

The individual building block goals set out for each state are not requirements. EPA  used  these assumptions and estimates  to calculate  each state’s  CO2 reduction goal, but  the rule allows a state to weight the  building blocks differently in  its  compliance plan.  For example,  difficulty meeting EPA’s expectations  for demand-side energy efficiency can be offset  by increasing renewable energy generation (or vice-versa).

RELYING ON EXISTING PROGRAMS

Media reports have  reflected a lot of confusion about the impact of the proposed rule on states like North Carolina that have already taken significant steps to increase renewable energy and energy efficiency.   The proposed federal rule actually stresses  reliance on programs already in place and gives the states  credit for expanded renewable energy generation or growth in energy efficiency as a result of  existing programs.

In talking about the final state emission rate goals,  the rule notes that  “EPA is also proposing that measures taken by a state or its sources after the date of this proposal, or programs already in place, and which result in CO2 emission reductions at affected EGUs during the 2020-2030 period, would apply toward achievement of the state’s CO2 goal.” 

The rule makes a similar statement about renewable energy generation:  “We note that with the exception of hydropower, the renewable energy generation levels represent total amounts of renewable energy generation, rather than incremental amounts above a particular baseline level. As a result, this RE generation can be supplied by any RE capacity regardless of its date of installation.”

Table 6 in the proposed rule  shows North Carolina’s 2012 renewable energy generation as 2% and a proposed final 2030 goal for North Carolina of  10%.  The  N.C. Utilities Commission has reported that North Carolina electric utilities met the first state Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS) goal of  3% of retail electricity sales in 2012. The final goal under the existing state law will be 10% of retail sales for electric membership corporations/ municipal systems  (by 2018) and 12.5% of retail sales for the electric public utilities (by 2021).  Under the EPA rule, the state will get credit for any new or expanded renewable energy generation in 2014 or later as a result of the existing state REPS requirement.

Since the state REPS goal requires electric utilities to continue to increase renewable energy generation and energy efficiency through 2021,  the increases realized between 2014 and 2021 will also move North Carolina toward the federal goal. To know whether the proposed carbon rule will require the state to do more on renewable energy, the state will need a gap analysis.  The analysis will have to separate  renewable energy generation from energy efficiency savings; the two have been combined in the state REPS goal, but are calculated separately under the federal rule.

The federal rule sets a goal of having every state achieve a 1.5% annual incremental savings based on  demand-side energy efficiency measures.  EPA assumes that states already realizing  a 1.5% in annual incremental savings  will continue  and  maintain that rate through 2029 — giving states that engaged in energy efficiency measures early full credit for the incremental energy savings achieved through existing programs. To understand how close North Carolina may already be to meeting the  carbon rule’s  energy efficiency goal, the state will need to calculate the incremental annual  demand side savings that can be attributed to the state REPS goal and  add incremental savings associated with other energy efficiency programs (such as energy efficiency standards incorporated in the State Building Code).

THE QUESTION

The big  question to be answered is this: How far will North Carolina’s existing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs go toward closing the gap between 1647 lbs CO2/MWh generated by EGUs that burn fossil fuels  and 992 lbs CO2/ MWh generated by power plants+ renewable energy + new/preserved nuclear + generation avoided by energy efficiency?

It appears the remaining gap may be small, giving  North Carolina  an advantage over states that haven’t adopted policies supporting renewable energy generation and energy efficiency.   If so, the advantage will be economic as well as environmental by holding down increases in state energy costs.

RESOURCES

Text of the Clean Carbon Rule (from the June 18, 2014 Federal Register notice)

Congressional Research Service Report: State CO2 Emission Rate Goals in EPA’s Proposed Rule for Existing Power Plants, Jonathan Ramseur, Specialist in Environmental Policy, July 21, 2014.

2013 NC Utilities Commission Annual Report Regarding Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard in North Carolina

NCDENR Questions Legal Basis for Proposed EPA Power Plant Rule

July 22, 2014.  On June 18, 2014, EPA published a proposed  rule to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)   from existing coal-fired power plants.  Both Duke Energy  and  DENR’s   Division of Air Quality  indicated a detailed review of the draft rule would be required to fully understand the impact  on North Carolina’s electric utilities.    More recently,  Donald van der Vaart, DENR’s Energy Policy Advisor,  made a presentation on  the  proposed CO2 rules to the N.C. Energy  Policy Council. You can find both a video  and a copy of the  powerpoint presentation here.  Rather than discussing the rule’s potential impact on the state’s electric utilities, the presentation questioned the legal basis for the EPA rule.  The  legal analysis identified some legitimate questions about interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision  underlying the CO2 rule,  but the analysis also had significant flaws.

EPA  proposed the CO2 rule under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act,  which authorizes EPA to adopt standards for new and existing sources of air pollution by category; in this case, the category consists of electric generating units burning fossil fuels. (The Clean Air Act also gives EPA two other tools for addressing air pollution —   Section 108 authorizes EPA to adopt  ambient air quality standards to be met on an area-wide basis and Section 112 allows EPA to regulate listed hazardous air pollutants, like mercury,   by source category.)

DENR’s  presentation to the Energy Policy Council offered some criticism of  EPA’s proposed CO2 standard for  new power plants, but  made a more pointed  attack on the  rule addressing emissions from existing power plants. The presentation both questioned EPA  authority to regulate CO2 emissions from existing power plants under Sec. 111(d)  and the appropriateness of including  transition to  natural gas;  expanded use of nuclear power and renewable energy sources;  and energy efficiency  as elements of the performance standard  for existing coal-fired power plants. This post will likewise focus on the  proposed  existing source rule under Sec. 111(d) and particularly the DENR objections to the rule that need  more context or correction:

DENR Objection:  EPA cannot  use Sec. 111(d) of the Clean Air Act  to set a standard for an existing air pollution source  also regulated  under  Sec. 112  (addressing  hazardous air pollutants) even if the standard proposed under Sec. 111(d) addresses a pollutant that is not regulated under Sec. 112.

Counterpoint:   This seems to be  a more open question that the presentation suggests. When Congress added Sec. 111 to the Clean Air Act in 1990,   the  House  version prohibited  use of Sec. 111(d)  to set standards for existing sources regulated under Sec. 112 and the Senate  version prohibited  its use to set standards for pollutants regulated under Sec. 112.  Both versions became part of the Statutes at Large.  EPA has consistently interpreted Sec. 111(d)  to prohibit  adoption of  existing source standards  for pollutants  regulated under Sec. 112.   (See a paper  by Adam Kushner and Judith Coleman on the background of the  Sec. 111(d) language and  EPA’s interpretation.) Under EPA’s interpretation, Sec. 111(d)  can be used to regulate CO2 emissions from existing coal-fired power plants because CO2 has not been regulated under Sec. 112 as a hazardous air pollutant.

As a policy matter, EPA certainly seems to have the better interpretation; otherwise, the language in Sec. 111(d) would create a loophole preventing regulation of a dangerous air pollutant from an existing  source (in this case, a  power plant) simply because the facility  also emits hazardous  air pollutants regulated under Sec. 112.  If EPA’s interpretation is challenged, the question will be whether the court recognizes the existence of a conflict in the statutory history of Sec. 111(d)  and defers to EPA’s interpretation.

DENR quotes the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in support of the more restrictive interpretation of Sec. 111(d), but the NRDC comments concerned  an EPA  rule regulating  mercury emissions  from power plants. Since mercury had been listed as a hazardous air pollutant under Sec. 112,  NRDC challenged EPA’s decision to use Sec. 111 instead of  Sec. 112 as the basis for the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).  NRDC did not argue that EPA lacked authority to  regulate emissions of other pollutants  from the same source  under Sec. 111 and the federal court decision in the CAMR case did not decide that issue.  (The Kushman/Coleman paper notes that the CAMR decision erroneously says that  EPA conceded a lack of authority.)

DENR Objection: Sec. 111(d) cannot be used to regulate pollutants listed under Sec. 108 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 1408).

Counterpoint:  DENR correctly notes that Sec. 111(d) cannot  be used to regulate an air pollutant  already covered by an ambient air quality standard  or  listed for development of an ambient air quality standard under Clean Air Act Sec. 108. But EPA has not adopted an ambient air quality standard for CO2 or listed CO2 under Sec. 108. The  DENR presentation assumes that EPA’s   2009 finding that CO2 (in combination with other greenhouse gasses) endangers public health and welfare  automatically resulted in a  Sec. 108 listing. The 2009 “endangerment” finding was made under Sec. 202 of the Clean Air Act as a necessary first step toward regulating motor vehicle emissions of  greenhouse gasses. But an “endangerment” finding by itself does not cause a pollutant to be listed under Sec. 108. The two are distinct actions.

DENR Objection: Sec. 111(d) requires controls on individual emission sources; the “performance standard”  cannot be met by alternative  CO2 reduction measures (such as energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy sources) allowed under the proposed EPA rule.

Counterpoint: This again appears to be a much more open question than the presentation would suggest. EPA’s proposed rule gives states the flexibility to use measures other than  pollution  controls on existing power plants in developing the “standard of performance”  required under Sec. 111(d).  EPA identifies four “building blocks” : increased efficiency at existing  coal-fired units; transition  from coal to natural gas;  greater reliance on nuclear energy and renewable energy sources; and management of electricity demand.   There may well be a debate over what can be considered a “standard of performance” under Sec. 111, but the question has not been settled. A number of legal scholars endorsed a similarly broad interpretation of the “standard of performance” under Sec. 111  well before release of the proposed EPA rule.  (You can find a  2011 discussion  paper on compliance flexibility under Sec. 111  here.)

EPA’s interpretation is also entitled to deference where Congress has not clearly required (or barred) a particular approach to implementation. The federal court decision cited by  DENR  as rejecting  pollution trading under Sec. 111, ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA,   was effectively overruled by the later U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,  467 U.S. 837 (1984).    In Chevron, the court upheld  EPA’s interpretation of “stationary source” to encompass all of the emission sources at a facility  —  an outcome  contrary to the earlier ASARCO decision-– giving industry the flexibility to modify individual sources at a facility within a facility-wide emissions cap.   The Chevron decision also made a very clear statement about deference to agency interpretation: “When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency’s policy rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail”.  EPA’s interpretation of the  “standard of performance” language in Sec. 111 to allow greater compliance flexibility and lessen the regulatory burden on electric utilities should be entitled to the same deference.

Whatever the strength or weakness of DENR’s legal analysis of the proposed CO2 rule for existing coal-fired power plants,  the fact of the critique certainly sends a message. It suggests that the McCrory administration may intend to  oppose the proposed rule whether the impact on North Carolina will be positive or negative.

2014 Regulatory Reform

May 21, 2014. Yesterday, the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee approved a 62-page regulatory reform bill that many committee members did not see until it was handed out at the beginning of the committee meeting.  Today, the Senate Finance Committee  gave  Senate Bill 734  (Regulatory Reform Act of 2014) a favorable report and the bill will go to the Senate floor tomorrow for an initial vote. Some of the most significant environmental provisions:

More legislative review of environmental rules.   In 2011, the General Assembly, returning to an idea from the 1980s,  put strict limits on  adoption of state environmental rules that are more stringent than federal rules on the same subject.  The   law  has  exceptions only for rules needed  to address a “serious and unforeseen threat to public health, safety or welfare” and rules required by state law, federal law, state budget policy or a court order.   (An earlier post  talks about  the practical difficulties and policy implications of  chaining  state environment standards so tightly to federal rules.)   Section 1 of Senate Bill  734  goes another step and  requires legislative review of  any  rule adopted under one of the  exceptions, possibly delaying the effective date of the rule for months.   The state’s Administrative Procedures Act normally requires legislative review of a rule only if 10  or more people send letters objecting to the rule.  Under Senate Bill  734,  ten letters of objection would still be needed to  get  legislative review of  a rule change that weakens environmental standards, but  the legislature would  automatically review any rule that  goes beyond minimum federal environmental standards.

Eliminate citizen appeals of toxic air pollution  permits. Sec. 2.2 limits citizen appeals of air quality permits to  decisions  involving a national ambient air quality standard. The problem is that “national ambient air quality standard” does not even cover the universe of federal air quality rules.  National ambient air quality standards cover six pollutants  (carbon monoxide,  lead, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and ozone) that cause environmental and health problems when levels  reach a certain level in outdoor air.   But the Clean Air Act  also regulates a much longer list of  hazardous air pollutants or “air toxics”  associated with   cancer risk, infertility, birth defects  and other acute environmental and health effects. Mercury and benzene are examples of air toxics.  There are no national ambient air quality standards for air toxics; those pollutants are regulated under a different set of rules that require  a high level of pollution control on every regulated air toxic source. As  written, Senate Bill 734 would   bar  citizen appeals of  air quality permits issued for facilities that emit air toxics.

Emergency Authority to Waive Coastal Development Permits. Sec. 2.5 gives the governor the authority to waive Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permits and environmental impact statements  for emergency repairs to a highway “that provides the sole road access to  an incorporated municipality or an unincorporated inhabited area bordering the Atlantic Ocean or any coastal sound, where bridge or road conditions as a result of the events leading to the declaration of the state of emergency pose a substantial risk to public health, safety, or welfare”. The description fits Highway 12 in Dare County — the  perennially endangered road on  Hatteras Island. (See an earlier post for the history – and cost — of maintaining Highway 12.) The idea of waiving state permits for rebuilding damaged segments of Highway 12 after a storm has some appeal — but may not have the desired effect. Aside from eliminating any state review of  project  impacts, waiving the CAMA permit only puts the  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entirely in  control of the permitting process.

Environmental Audits/ Self-Reporting. Sec. 3.6   of the bill does two significant things: 1. Protects internal company  environmental “audits” from disclosure to regulatory agencies; and 2.  Provides immunity from civil penalties to a company that voluntarily self-reports a violation.

Limited immunity from penalties can make sense if limited to situations where the violator has  self-reported a recent, unintended violation. The Senate Bill 734 audit/self-reporting provision has not been limited to those situations and potentially provides the benefit of confidentiality and immunity to violators who have committed  longstanding, continuing violations of environmental laws. Under the bill, the violator can use a recent environmental audit to cover numerous  past  violations and acquire immunity by “self-reporting” those violations.  Although the bill does not give immunity for willful and intentional violations or violations resulting from criminal negligence, it would deny regulators access to internal environmental audits that may document  the intentional behavior.  In the worst case, the provision could be a gift to violators who gambled for years on their ability to evade enforcement.

It is difficult to ignore the implications for   violations  at coal ash impoundments. Under the bill, a company  inspection of a coal ash impoundment could be treated as  a confidential “environmental audit” and  withheld from state regulators. And the owner/operator of the coal ash impoundment   may  get immunity from civil penalties by  self-reporting violations that had gone on for years.

Other sections of the bill incorporate legislation  recommended by the Environmental Review Commission (described here).  Senate Bill 734 actually goes beyond the ERC recommendation on isolated wetlands and proposes to eliminate permit review of  isolated wetlands impacts of less than an acre in both the eastern and western parts of the state.  The bill  continues a recent pattern of  weakening  open burning  rules by limiting local government authority to regulate open burning.  The bill also proposes to shift rulemaking authority for the waste management and drinking water programs from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission.

Legislative Wrap-Up V: Miscellaneous

August 14, 2013. Bits and pieces of environmental legislation (air quality, coastal development, sedimentation, renewable fuels tax credit). Many of the provisions discussed below were adopted as part of House Bill 74 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2013), which the Governor has not yet signed into law. The Governor has until August 25th to sign or veto  a bill adopted at the end of the legislative session; if the Governor takes no action, the bill becomes law without his signature.

Appeals of  Air Quality and Water Quality Permits

House Bill 74 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2013) includes two separate provisions that shorten the time for a third party  to appeal an air quality or water quality permit from 60 days to 30 days. (See Section 29 and Section 53.) The time for an applicant to appeal a permit decision has always been 30 days, but a third party (such as  a neighbor, local government or community organization) fell under the  60-day appeal period set in the state’s Administrative Procedures Act . The challenge for third parties is that the appeal period begins to run when the applicant gets notice of the permit decision — not when the third party receives notice.

Air Quality

Local Transportation Mitigation Ordinances.  House Bill 74 ( Regulatory Reform Act)  prohibits local governments from  using a fine or penalty to enforce  certain types of ordinances to reduce the air quality impacts of commuting by car. Section 10.1(a) of the bill adds a new statute section, G.S. 160A-204  (entitled Transportation impact mItigation ordinances prohibited):

“No city may enact or enforce an ordinance, rule, or regulation that  requires an employer to   assume financial, legal, or other responsibility for of the impact of his or her employees’ commute or transportation to or from the employer’s workplace , which may result in the employer being subject to a fine, fee, or other monetary, legal, or negative consequences.”

Section 10.1(b) adds a new G.S. 153A-145.1 that applies the same prohibition to counties.  A  Durham  ordinance requiring large employers to have a plan to reduce commuter miles traveled by employees may be an example of the kind of ordinance the legislation would  affect. The Durham ordinance allows the employer to choose a number of different approaches to reduce commuting by car, including: work-at-home policies; incentives for car-pooling; creation of company van pools; and shower facilities for employees who bike to work.

There was little discussion of the provision as House Bill 74 moved toward adoption,  but the same language appeared in a different House bill titled  Local carbon footprint ordinances (House Bill 677). The  title suggests that lawmakers  linked transportation mitigation ordinances to climate change policy.  In reality, these ordinances mostly have to do with reducing ozone pollution to  meet federal air quality standards.  As much as 70% of the ozone pollution in urban areas comes from motor vehicle emissions and reducing vehicle miles traveled is one way to keep motor vehicle emissions down.  The Durham ordinance talks specifically about the need to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions that contribute to high ozone levels.  Many of the state’s urban areas will be hard-pressed to meet tighter federal air quality standards for ozone while continuing to grow. Failing to meet the ozone standard (“nonconformity” in Clean Air Act language) has significant economic consequences, including loss of federal highway funds and inability to permit new industrial development.  The language in House Bill 74 does not  eliminate the authority for these kinds of  ordinances,  but it  will  make the ordinances difficult to enforce and possibly reduce their effectiveness as a tool to maintain ozone  conformity  in the state’s major metropolitan areas.

Repeal of Heavy Duty Diesel Rules for 2008 and Later Vehicles. Section 25 of House Bill 74 directs the Environmental Management Commission to repeal rule 15A NCAC 02D.1009 (Model Year 2008 and Subsequent Model Year Heavy Duty  Vehicle Requirements) by December 1, 2013. The rule was adopted  by the Environmental Management Commission in 2004 and required model year 2008 and later heavy-duty diesel vehicles to meet California emissions standards. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has allowed California to adopt more strict motor vehicle emissions standards than those in federal rules and a number of states have adopted California standards by reference. The EMC adopted the California heavy duty diesel standard because lawsuits delayed the federal standard for several years.  With a final  federal standard  for heavy duty diesel engines in place,  the state rule has become unnecessary. (The final  federal  standard turned out to be  nearly identical to the California standard that the EMC adopted by reference in 2004.)

Open Burning.  Section 28 of House Bill 74 makes a significant change to rules for open burning. Until now, open burning for land-clearing or right of way maintenance has only been allowed on the site being cleared unless the debris was taken to be burned in an air curtain burner,  (Air curtain burners or “fireboxes” provide better control of  smoke and particulate pollution than open burning of woody debris.) The new provision allows land-clearing debris to be transported off-site for open burning and allows that burn site to be used  up to  four times a year. The bill  requires an off-premises open burn to maintain the same setback distance from occupied structures as an  on-site open burn — 500 feet.  The impact on  nearby residents and building occupants may be different, however, if  the off-premises open burn site is used  more often.  The bill also exempts these off-site open burning locations from requirements that would otherwise apply to waste disposal site for land-clearing debris.

Air Quality Permit Terms. Section 29 of House Bill 74 sets the permit term for  most state-issued air quality permits  at eight years.   The term for  an air quality permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act  continues to be no more than  five years as required by federal law.

Coastal Development

Ocean and Inlet Erosion Control.  For over thirty years, state coastal policies  generally barred use of hard erosion control structures (like seawalls, jetties and groins) on ocean and inlet shorelines.  In  2011, Session Law 2011-387  made the first significant change in that policy by authorizing  DENR to permit  a limited number of   “terminal groins” under strict conditions.  A terminal groin is an erosion control structure built perpendicular to the shoreline and at the end of a section of beach. Terminal groins are sometimes used to stabilize an inlet shoreline. This year, Senate Bill 151  made several changes to the 2011 law. One of the most significant is a change in the definition of  ”terminal groin” to include projects that involve installation of “one or more” groin structures  or a single groin with  ”a number of smaller supporting structures”.

Although Senate Bill 151 keeps the 2011 limit on the total number of terminal groin projects permitted coast-wide (four), the new definition of “terminal groin” no longer matches the definition used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Expanding the term to include multiple groins as part of a single project means the law potentially authorizes projects well beyond the scope of a “terminal groin”. Senate Bill 151 also makes it easier  to get a terminal groin  permit by eliminating the need for the applicant to show that: 1.  the project is necessary to protect imminently threatened structures;  and 2. other shoreline stabilization measures  would not be successful. More background on the terminal groin issue and S.L. 2011-387 can be found here.

Local Authority in Public Trust Areas. Another section of Senate Bill 151 clarifies  local government authority to address nuisance conditions on the beach and prevent (or remove) obstructions in public trust areas of the beach. The clarification became necessary because of  a N.C. Court of Appeals decision in Town of Nags Head v. Cherry  that held only the state can take action to  remove a structure on the public trust beach. See an earlier post for background on the Nags Head case.

Notice of CAMA Minor Development Permits.  Section 30 of House Bill 74 eliminates the requirement for newspaper notice of Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) minor development permits. Notice will still be provided to any person or organization requesting notice of permit applications and by posting a notice at the site of the proposed development. Note: Under CAMA, “minor development”   can still be a significant  construction project.   CAMA  defines “major development”  to include any project that  requires another state or federal approval; occupies an  area of more than 20 acres; involves drilling for or excavating natural resources; or  occupies a structure(s) with a footprint of 60,000 square feet or more. All other development projects are considered “minor development”. As a practical matter, most projects that disturb an acre or  more will be “major development” because of the need for a sedimentation plan approval.

Note: As of  now, Senate Bill 151 has not been signed by the Governor and so has not yet become law.

Sedimentation Act

Local Sediment Programs. The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act  allows  DENR to delegate enforcement of the law to approved local sedimentation programs and many cities and counties have local programs. Section 33 of House Bill 74 resolves a recent question about  the role of the state’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in appeal of a civil  penalty assessed by a local program for violation of the Sedimentation Act. The bill makes it clear that those appeals  will be decided by the local government  under  the appeal process set out in the local sedimentation program ordinance. Appeals will not go to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

Tax Credit for Renewable Fuel Processing Facilities

House Bill 112 (Modifications to 2013 Appropriations Act)  extends  the tax credit available for facilities built to process renewable fuel. The sunset date for the renewable fuel processing tax credit, G.S. 105-229.16D,  had already been extended several times. Last year, the General Assembly extended the tax credit to facilities in service by January 1, 2014.  Section 11.2 of  House Bill 112 extends the tax credit to facilities in service by January 1, 2017 as along as the developer  signs a letter of commitment with the N.C. Secretary of Commerce by September 1, 2013 and begins construction by December 31, 2013.

A Rush of Environmental Legislation

May 12, 2013: The bill “cross-over” deadline arrives this week. By May 16, most  bills  must pass either the House or the Senate and “cross over” to the other chamber  to avoid sudden death. (There are exceptions for finance bills, budget bills and constitutional amendments.) Because of the deadline, bills have been flying out of committees and to the House and Senate floor — leading to a flurry of posts. Two more bills that came out of committee last week (and are scheduled for votes this evening on the Senate or House floor):

Senate Bill 638 (N.C. Farm Act of 2013) makes  a  significant change to state water quality law by excluding  any wetland that is not considered “waters of the United States” from protection under the  state’s water quality permitting requirements.  The bill  takes a term (“waters of the United States”)   that  describes  federal  Clean Water Act  jurisdiction and  uses it  to  remove state protection for  wetlands that fall outside federal jurisdiction.  For reasons that mostly have to do with limits on federal authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, not all state waters or wetlands are considered “waters of the United States”.  The limit on federal jurisdiction has nothing to do with the  importance of the wetland — it has to do with how the Constitution divides responsibility between the  federal  government and the states. The change in definition would mean that  someone could fill or discharge pollutants to wetlands that fall outside federal jurisdiction without any water quality  permit from the state. In committee, the change was described as one intended to help farmers, but developers are likely to benefit more.

House Bill 677 (Local Government Regulatory Reform)  came out of the House Regulatory Reform Committee. Language in the bill could interfere with efforts  to  keep the state’s urban areas in compliance with the  federal air pollution standard for ozone.  Meeting the ozone standard will be an increasing challenge as  population grows  and the ozone standard becomes tighter.  An area that fails to meet the ozone standard risks losing federal highway funding and new industrial development projects.  House Bill 677  prohibits cities and counties from adopting an ordinance that “[r]equires an employer to assume financial, legal, or other responsibility for an employee’s carbon footprint, which may result in the employer being subject to a fine. fee, or other monetary, legal, or negative consequences”.   Although the intent of House Bill 677 isn’t completely clear (and there was little committee discussion), the  bill  could  affect local programs to reduce  motor vehicle emissions that account for as much as 70% of the ozone pollution in urban areas. For example, a Durham  ordinance  requires large employers to do certain things to reduce commuter miles traveled by employees   in an effort to  reduce motor vehicle emissions.  The question is whether House Bill 677 will take away some tools that fast-growing urban areas like Durham can now use to stay  in compliance with the ozone standard.

Night of the Living Dead: Board and Commission Reorganization

In House Bill 1011 (Government Reform and Reorganization Act). the  boards and commission reorganization bill rises and walks again.  An earlier bill, Senate Bill 10,  died  when the House refused to adopt  compromise language negotiated with the Senate. The new bill came out of the House Rules Committee last week and quickly passed on the House floor.   Changes to the environmental commissions:

Coastal Resources Commission

— Reduces  the number of CRC members from  15 to 13;  nine members would be appointed by the Governor and  four by legislative leaders

— Eliminates  one at-large seat and the seat on the CRC currently designated for a representative of a  state or national conservation organization.

— Limits the number of CRC members who receive income from real estate development or construction. Seven of thirteen seats on the CRC  would have to be  filled by individuals “who do not derive any significant portion of their income from land development, construction, real estate sales, or lobbying and do not otherwise serve as agents for development related business activities”.

— Requires that all CRC  members be N.C. residents and either  reside or  own property in the coastal area

— Makes the transition to new appointees in two steps.  The bill would end the terms of all  CRC members  on June 30, 2013  with the exception of  the four members who have existing terms ending June 30, 2014.  Those four members are now in seats designated for commercial fishing,  wildlife or sports fishing, local government  and one of the three at-large seats.

Environmental Management Commission

—  Reduces  the number of EMC members to 15; nine members would be appointed by the Governor and six by legislative leadership.

— The bill keeps most of the categories for appointment to the EMC that appear in the existing statute (although in some cases, the number of EMC members in a given category may be reduced or categories have been combined). The bill eliminates the seat currently designated for a member  with public health experience and the seat for a member with experience in local government pollution control activities.

— The terms of all current EMC members would  end  on June 30, 2013. Eight new members will initially be appointed to two year terms and the remaining seven members to four year terms (to stagger the  terms). After the first set of new appointments, all members will be appointed to serve four-year terms.

The  bill also removes conflict of interest language in the EMC appointment statute. See N.C. General Statute 143B-283(c).  Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act   have conflict of interest standards  for members of state boards and commissions with  authority to issue federal permits. Under N.C. law, the EMC  has both air quality and water quality permitting authority. Although  the commission has delegated most permit decisions to DENR,  the EMC  still makes some permit and enforcement decisions (such as approval of major variances and civil penalty remissions requests.) To have  — and keep —  delegated permitting authority, North Carolina must meet the federal conflict of interest standards.  The sentence to be repealed closely tracks federal  Clean Air Act language requiring any state commission that approves permits or enforcement orders to have a majority of members who “represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders under [the delegated air quality permitting program]”. An effort to amend the bill on the House floor to reinstate the conflict of interest language failed.

Wildlife Resources Commission

— Shortens the term for Governor’s appointees to the WRC from  six years to four years. (Members appointed on the recommendation of legislative leadership will continue to serve two-year terms.)

— The terms of all current WRC members would end on June 30, 2013.

— About one-half of the  Governor’s new appointees would be appointed to two-year terms and the remainder to four-year terms (to create staggered terms). After the initial appointments, all Governor’s appointees would be appointed to four-year terms.

Regulatory Reform 3.0

April 29, 2013:  Last Thursday, the N.C. Senate’s Committee on Commerce approved a new version of Senate Bill 612 (Regulatory Reform Act of 2013) — the third in a series of “regulatory reform” bills developed since Republicans gained control of both houses of the General Assembly in the 2011. The bill may be on the Senate calendar tonight.

The bill attempts too  much  to describe in one post, but  the  most significant provisions would  repeal stream buffer requirements in the Neuse River and Tar-Pamlico River basins  and  require  repeal or modification of any state rule  that “imposes a more restrictive standard, limitation, or requirement” than a federal law or rule on the same subject. ( See an earlier post  for more detail on the  Senate Bill 612 stream buffer language.) The idea of prohibiting  state agencies from adopting rules (particularly environmental rules) that  go beyond minimum  federal requirements has been around for awhile. The Regulatory Reform Act of 2011     ( Session Law 2011-398 )  prohibited  state environmental  agencies — and only environmental agencies — from adopting  more restrictive standards or requirements  than federal rules on the same subject.   The  law had exceptions  for  rules to address a “serious and unforeseen threat to public health, safety or welfare” and rules required by state law, federal law, state budget policy or a court order.  Even then, the General Assembly had an eye on existing rules as well. The same legislation directed all state agencies to provide the Joint Select Regulatory Reform Committee with a list of existing rules and indicate for each rule whether the rule was mandated by federal law and whether the  rule was more stringent than an analogous federal regulation. (The session law defined analogous to mean that a federal rule regulated the same conduct or activity.)

The Regulatory Reform Act of 2012 (Session Law 2012-187)    did  not follow up on the reports  submitted in the fall of 2011.  Senate Bill 612 also ignores the information submitted by state agencies in 2011. Instead of using the 2011 reports to focus regulatory reform efforts, Senate Bill 612 directs state environmental agencies — and only environmental agencies —  to  repeal or modify any rule that exceeds minimum federal requirements unless the rule fits under one of  the exceptions set out in the 2011 legislation for new rules.  The bill  also takes away the authority of  city and county governments to adopt local ordinances that go beyond state and federal environmental standards.

It isn’t clear how   legislators  mean to interpret the Senate Bill 612 provisions. Even the most detailed federal environmental regulations (like those adopted by EPA under the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act) have gaps that need to be filled by state rules.  Federal regulations often lack  detail on program implementation, such as record-keeping and monitoring  requirements. Sometimes the gaps are more substantive; environmental and public health issues of great concern  in North Carolina have not always been national priorities.  Most  federally delegated or authorized  environmental programs  operate under federal regulations  that are much  less detailed than  the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act standards. The  state’s  water quality,  solid waste and coastal management programs  all operate under federal  laws  that  create  a framework for state regulatory programs, but  for the most part leave development of specific environmental standards to the state.  For those programs, it will be  difficult to directly compare state rules to federal regulations and determine what is more or less stringent.

So,  the Senate Bill 612 language  raises a number of questions:

— Where fairly detailed federal  standards  exist, would the bill require repeal of state rules that address gaps in the federal regulations?   Or can state rules go beyond  federal regulations to  describe the content of a complete permit application or establish specific  monitoring  and record-keeping requirements?

— In programs that operate under a federal framework for regulation that  leaves  specific standard-setting largely to the state agency (with federal oversight),  will Senate Bill 612 require repeal of  types of standards and requirements not specifically  identified  in the   federal regulations?   Will  the state’s water quality program, for example,  be limited to using regulatory  tools provided under the Clean Water Act (such as wastewater discharge permits) to solve  a water pollution problem? Or can the program continue to address all major water pollution sources and use innovative approaches not contemplated in the federal rules?

— Does the exception for rules addressing a  “serious and unforeseen threat to public health, safety and welfare”    allow state rules to go beyond minimum federal requirements because of particular conditions  in the state or in response to concerns that may not have come up in development of the federal regulation? Or will the General Assembly take the position that if EPA doesn’t think putting a petroleum underground storage tank (UST)  near a drinking water well is a problem, then it must not be a problem?

The  2011 DENR report  to the Joint Legislative Committee on Regulatory Reform identified a number of state environmental rules that go beyond the requirements of  federal rules on the same subject. From a quick review, I found some examples of state rules that may have to be repealed under Senate Bill 612 :

● State waste management rules  requiring minimum separation from groundwater for land application of septage (to prevent groundwater contamination) and maximum slopes for land application sites (to prevent runoff to surface waters).

● State rules requiring water systems to  treat drinking water with excessive levels  of iron and manganese; both can cause discoloration of skin and teeth, as well as odor and taste problems.  Federal rules have only “advisory” standards for manganese and iron and do not require water systems to provide treatment to improve the water quality.

● State rules requiring a public water system to notify  the  owner  if routine water system monitoring  finds  a drinking water standard violation or high levels of fecal coliform bacteria in a water sample from a building. Federal rules only require water systems to provide notice to customers  if the water system overall violates Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Since  a water system can  exceed drinking water  standards at some number of  individual monitoring locations without  being in violation as a system (the exact number varies depending on the size of the water system and number of monitoring sites), the federal rules do not require the water system to notify  individual  property owners of  a problem  confined to a particular site. The state notice rule was adopted in 2006 after complaints that local water systems did not notify  citizens of high lead  levels in their drinking water after it was detected in routine water systems monitoring.

● Rules  prohibiting  location of a petroleum  underground storage tank (UST) within  100 feet from a  well serving the public or within 50 feet of any other well used for human consumption.

● Rules requiring setbacks for land application of all wastewater residuals (both sewage sludge and other solids  from wastewater treatment) and setbacks for disposal of coal combustion byproducts. The  rules include setbacks from property lines, public and private drinking water supplies, other water supply wells, and surface waters.

● Limits on emissions of  three toxic air pollutants (arsenic, beryllium and chromium)  by   industrial, medical, hazardous waste and sewage sludge incinerators.

It isn’t clear that these are the kind of “regulatory reforms”  that the General Assembly actually wants to see.

You can find the full report at:  http://www.ncdenr.gov/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=00ccda5a-8c0d-4579-a7d5-f0af4b1474f3&groupId=2444522

Note: Why the General Assembly believes  environmental rules  to be a greater burden on North Carolina citizens than other types of regulation will be  a subject for another day.

House Changes to Senate Bill 10 — The Environment Commissions

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Commerce and Job Development approved a new version of Senate Bill 10 (reorganizing important state commissions) that  looks very different from  the bill approved by the Senate last week. The changes did not please  Senate bill sponsor Tom Apodaca who appeared in the House committee to present the Senate bill.  The most significant House changes affecting environment commissions:

Coastal Resources Commission

— Increased the number of CRC members from the 11 proposed by the Senate to 13;  nine members would be appointed by the Governor and  four by legislative leaders

— Restored seats representing commercial fishing, sports fishing, wildlife and agriculture.

Like the Senate Bill, the House PCS would eliminate specific seats for members with experience in forestry, finance, marine ecology and conservation.

— Restored language limiting the number of CRC members who receive income from real estate development or construction. The House bill would require that seven of thirteen seats on the CRC  be  filled by individuals “who do not derive any significant portion of their income from land development, construction, real estate sales, or lobbying and do not otherwise serve as agents for development related business activities”.

— Added language requiring that all members be N.C. residents and either  reside or  own property in the coastal area

— Makes the transition in CRC membership  more gradual by allowing four current members to serve for another year.  The bill would end the terms of all  CRC members when the bill becomes law with the exception of four members who have existing terms ending June 30, 2014.  Those four members are now in seats designated for commercial fishing,  wildlife or sports fishing, local government  and one of the three at-large seats.

Environmental Management Commission

— Increases the number of EMC members to 15 (compared to 13 in Senate bill); nine members would be appointed by the Governor and six by legislative leadership.

—  Restores the  seat  for  a person  with experience  in air pollution or air pollution control.

— Adds back a seat for a  member with expertise in fisheries, marine ecology  or fish and wildlife conservation

— Restores the EMC conflict of  interest language. The House bill would require that all of the Governor’s appointees (a majority of the EMC members) must be people who  do not derive any significant portion of their income from “persons subject to permits or enforcement orders” under  the water and air quality statutes.

— Makes a more gradual transition to new appointments, taking the same approach used in the CRC appointments. The terms of all current EMC members would  end March 15, except that  four members would serve out terms  scheduled to end on June 30 2015.  Those four  EMC members now hold  seats earmarked for: agriculture; an engineer with experience in water supply  or in water or air pollution; a citizen interested in water or air pollution; and a person with expertise in air pollution or air pollution control. (As explained by legislative staff, the four EMC members hold over for two years  because of the way EMC terms are staggered.)

After a stop in the House Rules Committee on Thursday,  the bill can go to  the House floor.  From there, it will almost certainly  have to go to a conference committee to work out differences with the Senate.