Category Archives: Energy

Environmental issues related to energy development and production, including hydraulic fracturing.

Climate Choices Part II — Session Law 2021-165 (Carbon Reduction Plan)

January 22, 2023.  A 2021 North Carolina  law requires the N.C. Utilities Commission (NCUC) to “take all reasonable steps” to achieve a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2)  emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality for the utility generation system by 2050.   More below on the requirements of  Session Law 2021-165  (also referred to as House Bill 951) and NCUC action in response. The next post will look at the potential overlap of the S.L. 2021-165 carbon reduction plan with draft rules (described in the previous post) under consideration by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission.

The Reduction Goal.  Session Law 2021-165  set a goal of reducing CO2 emissions from EGUs 70%  (from a 2005 baseline of 75,865,188 short tons) by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Under the law, “carbon neutrality” means that for every ton of CO2 emitted in the state by a regulated EGU an equivalent amount of CO2 must be reduced, removed, prevented, or offset. The law limits offsets to 5%. The NCUC can extend the CO2 reduction timelines by two years — or longer if necessary to allow for completion of a  new nuclear or wind energy facility essential to the carbon reduction plan.

The reduction goals apply to electric utilities that are: 1. regulated by the Utilities Commission;  and 2. served at least 150,000 North Carolina retail jurisdictional customers as of January 1, 2021. The law does not apply to EGUs operated by  local government utilities; electric membership co-ops; industrial facilities; or other institutions since the Utilities Commission doesn’t regulate those facilities.  As a result, the carbon reduction plan will only affect EGUs at power plants owned  by the two investor-owned utilities operating in North Carolina — Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress.  As a practical matter, however, those two utilities account for over 80% of the total CO2  emissions from electric power generation in the state.

A few other things to understand about S.L. 2021-165.  First, the law is directed to the Utilities Commission rather than the electric utilities.  It authorizes the Utilities Commission to take  “all reasonable steps” to achieve the CO2 reduction goals and adopt a plan by December 31, 2022 to do so. The law does not directly mandate that the utilities meet the reduction goals; create penalties for a utility’s  failure  to meet the goals; or address  how emissions levels will be monitored and reported to show  whether the goals have been met.  Instead, the law relies on the NCUCs  existing authority to approve/disapprove utility-owned generation facilities and related authority to allow the utilities to recover the cost of facilities and operations through rates charged to customers.  

In developing the plan, the law directs  the Utilities Commission to follow existing state law with respect to least-cost generation of power and maintain system reliability.  So the law requires a balancing of consumer costs/system reliability and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The law also requires “new generation facilities or other resources” selected by the Utilities Commission  as part of the plan  must be owned by the utility. There is an exception for solar; the law provides that 45% of new solar included in the reduction plan must be supplied by third parties through power purchase agreements. The Utilities Commission has interpreted the statute language to mean that power purchase agreements cannot be used to acquire other energy resources (such as wind energy) to meet the reduction goals even though that may be a lower cost alternative to new energy project development.

Carbon Reduction Plan. As a first step, the Utilities Commission required Duke Energy to submit a proposed carbon reduction plan in May 2022.  Instead of a single proposed plan,   Duke Energy submitted four alternative plans for the Utilities Commission to consider. All four plans proposed to phase-out all of the state’s remaining coal-fired power plants although   closure  dates varied. The plans differed in the mix of new energy sources (natural gas, solar, battery storage, nuclear and wind) to replace coal and the timelines for bringing those new sources on line. Duke Energy projected that only one of its four portfolios of energy resources  would meet the 70% interim reduction goal by 2030; others met the interim goal two to four years later.

NCUC Order. On December 30, 2022, the NCUC issued an order that put a number on the 70% reduction target for 2030 (22,759,556 short tons of CO2), but the Commission did not adopt any of the four plans proposed by Duke Energy to meet the reduction goals. The NCUC declined to endorse a specific energy portfolio capable of meeting the interim and final CO2 reduction goals at all. Instead, the Utilities Commission authorized Duke Energy to take a number of near-term actions in 2023-2024 and created a process for  reviewing the  electric generation portfolio every two years.

An existing NCUC rule, R8-60-1,  already required electric utilities to submit an integrated resource plan (IRP) to the Utilities Commission every two years. The IRP forecasts electric power demand over a 15 year period and  describes how the utility will meet projected demand through a combination of electric generation; power purchase; demand-side management (such as programs to reduce peak use); and energy efficiency. The NCUC’s order basically repurposes the  IRP as a vehicle for identifying the most cost-effective and reliable mix of energy sources to meet the CO2 reduction goals.

The NCUC order allows Duke Energy to take initial steps common to most of  Duke’s alternative energy portfolios in the next two years, but defers decisions about the energy mix needed beyond 2023-2024 to meet the reduction goals.  Actions authorized in the near term tend to be low risk (in terms of cost and reliability) and avoid commitments to more complex  long-term projects. The  order also directs Duke Energy to address a number of cost and feasibility questions in the first carbon reduction IRP.  For example, the NCUC has asked for information on the impact of federal subsidies and tax incentives  (such as those in the Inflation Reduction Act) that may reduce some renewable energy costs. The order also directs Duke Energy to further evaluate both onshore and offshore wind projects. The NCUC report notes questions about the practicality of developing an onshore wind project by 2029 and costs related to connecting both onshore and offshore wind projects. Duke Energy’s  first carbon reduction IRP will be due in September 2023 and the NCUC will take action on that IRP in 2024.

This incremental approach  gives the Utilities Commission more time to evaluate alternative  energy projects before committing to a plan, but also leaves a significant gap between actions allowed under the December 30, 2022 order and those needed to meet the CO2 reduction goals. For example, Duke Energy projects that 5,980- 7,930 MW  of additional solar will be needed to meet the emission reduction goals, but the December 31, 2022 order only authorizes Duke to procure an additional 2350 MW of solar over a two year period  (2023-2024). The order also defers authorization for any wind energy projects as part of the plan although all four Duke Energy plans included onshore wind resources and three of the four also relied on offshore wind generation.

It is not clear how long the NCUC can continue to allow the carbon reduction plan to evolve,  since  Duke Energy will need to make investments in facilities and enter contractual agreements to bring new energy sources on line. The window for flexibility will close soon for financial and contractual commitments needed to meet the 2030 reduction goal. Realistically,  the first carbon reduction IRP  (2024) will need to  result in a much firmer plan to achieve a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions to have any possibility of meeting the 2030 goal. The 2024  plan will also need to lay the foundation for meeting  the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

In short,  the December 30, 2022 NCUC order does not deliver the step by step plan to meet the reduction goals set in S.L, 2021-165  many in the public (and perhaps the legislature) expected. It effectively defers approval of a plan to meet even the interim goal until the 2024 IRP at the earliest. The order takes a conservative approach to acquisition of additional solar generation, authorizing only the amount of solar generation proposed for 2023-2024 out of concern about the cost of connecting more solar more quickly.  It  also withholds authorization for  onshore and offshore wind projects pending additional information on cost; per Duke Energy’s proposed plans, wind projects will be necessary to achieve the 70% reduction goal by 2030-2032.

Among the  near term steps authorized in the NCUC order:

♦  Pursuit of closure plans for existing coal-fired units.  Although timing varied,  all four Duke Energy carbon reduction plans assumed closure of all existing coal fired units by  2036.

♦ Planning for additional natural gas generation (combined cycle units and combustion turbines) to offset lost coal-fired generation. All four Duke Energy carbon plans proposed to add natural gas generation for an extended period of time. The approach has been controversial since natural gas also produces CO2 emissions although at lower levels than coal combustion.  The Utilities Commission accepted Duke Energy’s justification for increased natural gas generation, but requires the first carbon plan IRP to model the cost and assumptions for natural gas units proposed to operate beyond 2050. Any new natural gas generating units will require individual NCUC approval before construction and the order directs Duke Energy to address natural gas availability in those project proposals.

♦ Pursue extension of federal licenses for existing nuclear power plants serving North Carolina.

♦ Target procurement of 2,350 MW of new solar during the 2023-2024 period.

♦ Begin initial development and procurement activities for 1,000 MW of standalone battery storage and 600 MW of Solar Plus Storage.

♦ Meet with onshore wind stakeholders; explore the potential for a successful request for proposals to develop an onshore wind project;  and consider onshore wind as an additional source in the first carbon reduction IRP if that is supported by modeling.

♦ Take the preliminary steps identified in Duke Energy’s 2022 proposed carbon plan toward development of small modular and advance nuclear reactors.

♦ Further study offshore wind energy leases off the North Carolina coast and report back to the NCUC on the feasibility of including an offshore wind generation project in the  carbon reduction plan. Duke Energy had proposed to acquire a wind lease in the Carolina Long Bay lease area (Cape Fear) currently held by Duke Energy Renewables. The NCUC declined to authorize transfer of the lease, citing questions about the cost of bringing power onshore and creating interconnections with the transmission system. The scope of the study is to include all three areas off the N.C. coast where the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has approved wind energy leases.

♦ Model a higher rate of energy efficiency as part of the total carbon reduction plan. Duke Energy’s proposed plans assumed energy efficiency improvements at 1% of “eligible” retail sales. A number of commenters pointed out that  “eligible” retail sales leaves out wholesale customers and retail industrial customers that opt out of the EE program.  The NCUC order directs Duke Energy to model both a 1.5% improvement in energy efficiency among eligible retail customers and explore programs to extend energy efficiency improvements among wholesale customers.

The entire Utilities Commission report can be found here.  The report is organized around findings of fact and the basis for those findings (by topic) followed by the order listing near-term actions authorized by the Commission at pages 130-135.

Consumer impacts. It is important to understand the influence of the Utilities Commission Public Staff on any carbon reduction plan. The Public Staff  (entirely independent of the NCUC staff)   exists specifically to represent consumers in matters before the NCUC  — particularly with respect to utility rates. As a consumer advocate, the Public Staff  focuses on cost and reliability of service.  One of the challenges of a major transition from fossil fuel to clean energy can be the tension between cost/reliability in the near term versus the long-term benefits of a carbon neutral electrical system.  In developing its report and December 30, 2022 order, the Utilities Commission was very responsive to cost concerns expressed by the Public Staff. Many of the NCUC requests for additional cost information and modeling in the first carbon reduction IRP reflect issues raised by the Public Staff in review of Duke Energy’s proposed plans. The push/pull between competing goals will be something to watch.

Climate Choices Part I — N.C. and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

January 4, 2023.  By coincidence rather than design,  two different approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector have been under discussion by North Carolina agencies since 2021. This post will describe draft rules being considered by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by Clean Air Carolina and the N.C. Coastal Federation.  The rulemaking petition asked the EMC to adopt rules requiring units serving electric generators of 25 MW or greater to participate in a market-based program to reduce CO2 emissions.

A later post will cover the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC)  Carbon Reduction Plan.  The two approaches share goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 70% by 2030 (from a 2005 baseline) and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.  The approaches differ in the generating units affected (although there is overlap) and the mechanism relied on to achieve the reductions.

The  Proposed  EMC Rules: The draft rules being considered by the EMC would set the stage for North Carolina to join 11 other states in a  market-based program — the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) — to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)  emissions from electric generators.   RGGI relies on a market concept similar to the “cap and trade” program EPA used to incentivize reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions contributing to acid rain.

Background on RGGI.  Seven northeastern states created RGGI in 2005. Over time, RGGI has expanded to include eleven east coast states:  Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia.

RGGI uses cost to drive down CO2 emissions from electric generating units (EGUs) by requiring each EGU to buy an “allowance”  for each short ton of carbon dioxide it emits annually. In the RGGI context, an “EGU”  means a unit generating electricity for distribution to customers —  an electric utility. Each participating RGGI state sets an annual emission budget that caps CO2 emissions from those EGUs; the combined state CO2 budgets become a regional budget for the RGGI states.  The CO2 emissions budget gradually declines over time; currently, RGGI has a goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 30% (from a 2020 baseline) by 2030.

RGGI conducts quarterly auctions of available allowances (the number based on the CO2 emissions budget and other factors).  EGUs can also purchase allowances directly from other emission sources.   The net proceeds of the RGGI allowance auction (minus an administrative fee)  go back to the participating state governments in proportion to the  state’s share of the total RGGI  emissions budget. RGGI characterizes itself as a “cap and invest” program  because many of the participating states direct their auction revenue to support renewable energy; energy efficiency; measures to mitigate climate impacts; and assistance to low-income households.

Note:  This is a very simple overview  of the way RGGI operates. The RGGI program includes complex provisions on the conduct of auctions; calculation of emissions; emissions record-keeping and reporting; and measures to prevent allowance prices from going either too high or too low. More detailed information can be found through the RGGI website homepage.

The RGGI rulemaking petition. N.C. General Statute 150B-20 allows anyone to petition a state agency to adopt or amend a rule. In January 2021, Clean Air Carolina and the N.C. Coastal Federation filed a  rulemaking petition requesting the EMC to adopt draft rules (included in the petition)  creating the regulatory framework necessary for North Carolina participation in RGGI.

In July 2021, the EMC voted to approve the rulemaking petition. Approval of the  rulemaking petition just means that the EMC has agreed to begin the rulemaking process based on draft rules submitted by the petitioners; it does not commit the EMC to adopt the rules.  The EMC is still in the first stage of the  rule-making process, which requires preparation of a regulatory impact analysis describing the rule’s effects,  including the potential fiscal impact on state government, local government, and others affected by the rule. Once the fiscal analysis has been completed and approved by the Office of State Budget and Management, the  draft rule and the regulatory impact analysis will be released to the public for review and comment.

At this stage of the rulemaking process, the EMC cannot change the draft rule as proposed by the petitioners.  Once the public comment period has closed, the EMC can take one of three actions: 1. adopt the petitioners’ rule draft; 2. adopt the rule with changes to address questions or concerns raised in public comment or EMC discussion; or 3. decline to adopt the rule in any form.

Comparison of the Proposed N.C. Rules to Existing RGGI States. The draft rules submitted to the EMC by Clean Air Carolina and N.C. Coastal Federation use the basic structure of the RGGI program — a state CO2 emissions budget that declines over time and a requirement that each regulated generating unit must purchase an allowance for each short ton of CO2 that it emits. The draft rules differ from those adopted by other RGGI states in some key ways:

♦ The rules apply to a broader set of CO2 emission sources. In the other RGGI states, only electric generating units (EGUs)  associated with electric utilities are required to hold allowances for CO2 emissions.  The proposed N.C. rules would also apply to generating units  of 25 MW or greater that are operated by industries or institutions to generate electricity for their own use. As a result, the N.C. rules refer to “CO2 budget units” rather than EGUs. Under the draft N.C. rules, EGUs are a subset of “CO2 budget units”.

♦ The rules apply to emissions from additional types of fuel. The proposed N.C. rules would apply to CO2 emissions associated with biomass or biofuels as well as fossil fuels.

♦  No North Carolina state agency would directly participate in the RGGI auction process.  Unlike other RGGI states, North Carolina would not allocate the state’s CO2  allowances to the RGGI auction directly. Instead,  the state would develop a state CO2 budget;  create “conditional” allowances based on the budget; and assign those allowances — at no cost — to the regulated generating units in N.C.  The draft rule requires those units to consign their allowances to  RGGI and purchase the allowances back through the RGGI auction before they can be used to comply with the rule.

♦ Net proceeds of the RGGI auction would go back to the CO2 budget units  instead of becoming state revenue.  In other participating RGGI states,  a designated state agency receives the net auction revenues and directs the use of those funds consistent with state law. The draft N.C. rules have the net auction revenues return to the regulated generating units. As a result,  no N.C. state agency would have any direct involvement in the RGGI auction process at either the beginning (consignment of allowances to the auction) or end (receipt of revenues from the auction).

The draft N.C. rules include a provision allowing  CO2 budget units to  use auction proceeds “for public benefit, strategic energy, or other purposes approved by the [N.C. Utilities] Commission”.  Note that a number of the CO2 budget units covered by the draft N.C. rule are not EGUs regulated by the N.C. Utilities Commission;  municipal and co-op systems fall outside the NCUC’s jurisdiction. The Division of Air Quality has determined that the draft N.C. rule would also cover a small number of generating units  operated by an institution or industry to generate power solely for its own use.  In any case, the draft rule language  seems to be sufficiently broad to allow most generating units to use auction revenue just as they use revenue from rates or other sources.  Units that fall under the NCUC jurisdiction would continue to be subject to that commission’s usual oversight with respect to rates and plans to meet electricity demand. 

Since the fiscal analysis of the N.C. rule hasn’t been completed, there is not yet an estimate of the amount of revenue likely to return to the electric generating units covered by the N.C. rule. But the revenues returning to existing RGGI states (reported on the RGGI website ) have been substantial. For example, the state of New York’s revenue  has ranged from  $300,000,000  to $500,000,000 for each 3-year RGGI auction cycle.

♦ The draft rules propose a steeper reduction in CO2 emissions than that required by current RGGI states. The draft N.C. rules require a 70% reduction by 2030 (from a 2005 baseline) and carbon neutrality by 2050. The existing RGGI program has  a goal of 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030, although the participating RGGI states have decided to review the goal given progress to date. The difference would mean a  steeper reduction curve  for N.C. sources compared to those in states currently participating in RGGI.

Next Steps. Before the EMC makes any decision about adoption of the proposed rules, the draft rules will be published for public review and comment along with the regulatory impact/fiscal analysis. The Division of Air Quality originally anticipated that the fiscal analysis would be complete in November 2022, allowing the EMC to receive public comments in early 2023 and make a rulemaking decision in May 2023.   Final approval of the fiscal analysis has been delayed, however,  to allow more time for review by the Office of State Budget and Management. The delay means the EMC may not be able to take any action on the proposed rules until later in the summer of 2023.

Pipelines

June 4, 2021. The NC. Senate voted yesterday to disapprove the nomination of Dionne Delli-Gatti as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Republican Senators  continued to tie the disapproval to dissatisfaction with Delli-Gatti’s earlier responses to questions about Cooper administration policy on natural gas in general and the Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate project in particular.  Senators cited recent disruption of gasoline supplies due to a cyber attack on Colonial Pipeline to highlight the risk to natural gas supplies similarly reliant on a single major pipeline. Senators leading the opposition to confirmation placed the responsibility for addressing the risk  posed by lack of redundancy in pipeline infrastructure on Sec. Delli-Gatti and characterized her answers to questions about natural gas policy as “disqualifying”.

Some background on the natural gas issues  raised by Senators in opposition to Secretary
Delli-Gatti —

DEQ and pipeline approvals.  An energy company makes the initial decision to construct new infrastructure  based on evaluation of demand and economic return. Private sector energy companies haven’t planned new projects around creating redundancy in major energy infrastructure. It also isn’t clear how easy it would be under existing state and federal energy laws to get approval of a project based solely on creating redundancy in the system.  Those approvals now require justification based on additional demand, replacement of existing capacity, and compliance with environmental standards. The approvals also take consumer cost into consideration.

New natural gas pipelines require a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to  confirm a legitimate energy need for the project. FERC also regulates interstate pipeline projects for transportation safety purposes. As the lead federal agency,  FERC takes responsibility for environmental review of the projects — including preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and coordination with other federal permitting agencies. Pipeline construction often requires a  Clean Water Act Sec. 404 permit (for deposition of fill material in rivers, streams and other waters) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

DEQ has no role in planning new pipelines or in  FERC decisions about the necessity of a proposed pipeline.  DEQ’s ability to affect energy infrastructure projects largely  comes from its authority to  implement state laws protecting water quality and air quality. Unless other state permits are required, DEQ participates in environmental review of  a pipeline project in two ways: 1. DEQ  agencies comment on the draft federal  EIS;  and 2. the Division of Water Resources may be requested to issue a state water quality certification for the project.  Under Sec. 401 of the Clean Water Act, an  applicant for a Sec. 404 permit must provide  a certification that the entire project as constructed and operated will meet state water quality standards. The state certification is not a permit, but  the Clean Water Act prohibits the Corps of Engineers from issuing a Sec. 404 permit  if the state has denied the  water quality certification. Since pipeline projects often traverse multiple states,  a pipeline project would require similar certifications from each state in the path of the pipeline.

DEQ has reviewed two pipeline projects in recent years; both had been proposed by electric utilities to supply natural gas to power plants.  Duke Energy and Dominion Energy jointly proposed construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP) to transport natural gas from West Virginia into  Virginia and  Eastern North Carolina to supply Dominion and Duke Energy power plants.

Dominion Energy proposed the Mountain Valley Pipeline Southgate project to extend transmission pipeline from the proposed Mountain Valley Mainline in Virginia into Piedmont North Carolina. The Mountain Valley Mainline would be a major new pipeline (not yet constructed)  to  transport natural gas from shale formations in West Virginia and Pennsylvania to Virginia. The MVP Southgate project included 40 miles of pipeline through Rockingham County and  Alamance County, ending southeast of Graham, North Carolina.

Cooper Administration  Actions on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the MVP Southgate Project

DEQ’s Division of Water Resources issued a water quality certification for the ACP project on January 26, 2018.  The same day, Governor Cooper announced  a separate agreement between the state, Dominion Energy and Duke Energy to  create a $57.6 million mitigation fund to be used at the Governor’s discretion to mitigate project impacts beyond the scope of those addressed by environmental permits. Under the agreement,  the funds could also be used to assist  Eastern North Carolina industries that could not otherwise afford to tap onto the pipeline. The mitigation fund, which was controversial (and redirected by the General Assembly to benefit schools in the counties affected  by pipeline construction), never came into existence because of the later decision by Duke and Dominion to cancel the ACP project.

On August 11, 2020, DEQ’s Division of Water Resources denied the water quality certification and a Jordan Lake riparian buffer authorization for the MVP Southgate project because of uncertainty about the project’s viability.  Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC had indicated an intent to begin construction of the MVP Southgate project before legal obstacles to the MVP Mainline had been resolved, creating the possibility of water quality impacts in North Carolina without assurance the pipeline would ever operate. The DEQ letter denying the water quality certification noted that:

…several federal permits necessary for the construction of the MVP Mainline project have been suspended or are pending, with some in litigation. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a stop-work order on the currently incomplete MVP Mainline project. The uncertainty of the MVP Mainline project’s completion presents a critical risk to the achievability of the fundamental purpose of MVP Southgate.

Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC appealed denial of the water quality certification. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld DEQ’s  authority to deny the certification based on uncertainty that the documented water quality impacts of construction would ever be justified by energy benefits. But the court directed the state to provide more explanation of  the decision to deny certification rather than condition certification  on approval of the MVP Mainline project. On April 29, 2021 (two days after Secretary Delli-Gatti’s confirmation hearing), the Division of Water Resources issued a letter further explaining the denial decision as required by the court. 

The April 2021 letter quoted from the original DWR hearing officer’s report on the MVP Southgate project:

In the absence of the MVP Mainline pipeline’s completion in Virginia, the MVP Southgate project has no independent utility. In essence, it would be a pipeline from nowhere to nowhere incapable of carrying any natural gas, and certainly not able to fulfill its basic project purpose, while having no practical alternative. As such, prior to incurring any impacts to North Carolina natural resources, and to ensure that the maximum avoidance and minimization of impacts to North Carolina water and buffer resources occurs, a level of certainty regarding the completion of the MVP Mainline pipeline is required.

Outcomes. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline received necessary state and federal approvals,  but  Duke Energy and Dominion Energy announced the cancellation of the project in July 2020 due to cost increases, project delays, and increased uncertainty about the outcome of legal challenges to federal permits for the project.  The companies pointed particularly to a federal court decision from another state calling  into question the Corps of Engineers’ approach to permitting similar projects under Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

As noted above, DEQ’s Division of Water Resources provided additional explanation for denying the water quality certification for the MVP Southgate project as required by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC can reapply for a water quality certification if/when legal barriers to construction of the Mountain Valley Mainline project have been removed.

Open Questions.  What is the Cooper administration policy on natural gas? Based on DEQ’s actions on the two pipeline projects reviewed since 2017, there is no policy against new natural gas infrastructure. Cooper’s DEQ approved the water quality certification for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and denied the certification for the Mountain Valley Southgate project based on conditions peculiar to that project. Every indication is that DEQ has evaluated individual projects on their merits under existing state environmental laws and rules.

Two other issues arose in the confirmation debate: 1. The  possible need for redundancy in energy infrastructure to reduce risk of system failure; and 2. The challenges of meeting near-term energy needs during a period of transition from nearly total  dependance  on fossil fuels to greater reliance on renewable energy sources.

Pipeline companies clearly need to reduce risk of service interruption. Creating redundant pipeline infrastructure , however, would be extremely expensive — costs that would be passed on to consumers — and likely unnecessary to reduce most types of  risk. Avoiding loss of pipeline service  due to a cyber attack is best addressed by better cyber security rather than creating more  pipeline infrastructure served by the same unsecured computer system.

There is also a legitimate question about how to meet current energy demand during a transition from fossil fuels to more renewable resources.  That will require a delicate dance of demand, supply and reliability; cooperation between public utilities and state/federal agencies; outreach to communities  concerned about local impacts; and environmental organizations looking toward a different energy future. DEQ approved the Atlantic Coast Pipeline; community resistance and legal challenges by environmental organizations caused Duke Energy and Dominion Energy to abandon the project.

2017 NC Legislative Session in Review: The Budget

July 16, 2017. A few notes on the final state budget which became law following legislative override of the Governor’s veto.

Funding for Environmental Protection Programs. The final budget continues a 7-year trend of annual reductions in environmental protection programs. (See an earlier post  describing the impact of those earlier reductions.) The most significant new cuts to programs in the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)  affect:

     Energy Programs. The budget takes almost $1 million from energy programs. The budget reduces pass-through funding for university-based energy centers from around $1 million to a total of $400,000 divided equally between centers at Appalachian State University and North Carolina A& T University. North Carolina State University’s Clean Energy Technology Center will receive no funding. The budget also eliminates 3 of 5 positions in DEQ’s Energy Office.

     Regional Offices/Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service.  DEQ’s seven   regional offices house frontline permitting, compliance and technical assistance staff for multiple environmental programs including water quality, water resources, air quality and waste management. Since 2011, the legislature has made the regional offices a particular target  for reductions in positions and funding. The 2017 budget reduces appropriations supporting DEQ’s  Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service by $500,000 and requires DEQ to meet the cut in part by eliminating one position in each of the seven regional offices. The Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service is a non-regulatory program that provides technical assistance to businesses on water conservation, energy efficiency, waste reduction and other measures to improve environmental compliance.

Conservation Funding. Most funding for conservation programs, such as the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund now go through the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources budget. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services also manages some conservation funds through the Farmland Preservation Trust, which purchases conservation easements on agricultural lands. Conservation funding in both departments generally remained stable. The legislature increased funding for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, earmarking a combined  $1 million of the increase for an acquisition project on Archer’s Creek (Bogue Banks). The budget also allocates an additional $2.6 million to the Wildlife Resources Commission for acquisition of gamelands and an additional $2 million to the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.

Surprisingly, the budget did not include state funds to match a federal Department of Defense (DOD) challenge grant of $9.2 million to acquire conservation lands to provide buffers around military installations. DOD announced award of a Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration (“REPI”) grant to North Carolina earlier this year for acquisition of buffers around the Dare County Bombing Range and endangered species habitat near Camp Lejeune.  The federal award  anticipated a state contribution of an additional $10.1 to be put toward the projects.  The final state budget failed to earmark any funding for the state match. The  Clean Water Management Trust Fund and other state conservation agencies could provide some  of the state match, but in the absence of a legislative earmark the REPI projects would be competing with other applications for those grant funds.

Special provisions. As usual, the budget bill (Senate Bill 257 ) includes a number of “special provisions” that  change existing law. Those include:

     Air quality. The budget allows DEQ to use fees from automobile emissions inspections to support any part of the air quality program. Previously, inspection fee revenue could only be used to implement the automobile inspection and maintenance program. In the past, the legislature has tilted toward keeping inspection and maintenance fees as low as possible while still providing adequate reimbursement to inspection stations. The 2017 provision  divorces the fees from the needs of the vehicle inspection and maintenance program for the first time.

The budget also requires legislative approval of DEQ’s plan to use approximately $90 million the state will receive from the Environmental Protection Agency’s  national settlement of an air quality enforcement case against Volkswagen.  (The case concerned  VW’s installation of software to defeat vehicle emissions control systems.) Funds from the settlement will be divided among the states and must be spent for purposes specifically allowed under the EPA settlement agreement.  The agreement gives states a number of options and the legislature clearly wants to influence DEQ’s decision about use of the funds.

     Solid Waste. The budget shifts $1 million from a fund for assessment/cleanup of contamination caused by old, unlined  landfills to the City of Havelock to be used for “repurposing” property previously owned by a recycling company.  (See Sec. 13.3) Phoenix Recycling operated on property just beyond the city limits, but closed in 2000 as a result of environmental violations.  In 2012, the City of Havelock received a state grant to assess environmental contamination on the property. In 2015, Havelock’s city manager advised the town council that if the city acquired the property, it could be eligible for up to $550,000 in federal “Brownfield” grant funds under an EPA program to support cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites.  In 2016, the city acquired the property and annexed it into the city.  It isn’t clear whether the city ever applied for the federal Brownfields grant. The 2017 budget provision would instead provide state funding for redevelopment of the property. A Progressive Pulse blogpost provides a good overview of how the earmarking of these funds for the Phoenix Recycling property will reduce funds available to cleanup other, higher priority contaminated sites.

Another provision (Sec. 13.4) allows the owner of an old, unlined landfill site to exclude the property from a state program to cleanup contamination  from  “pre-1983” landfills.  (Modern standards for solid waste landfills went into effect in 1983).  Under the provision, the owner can remove property from the state cleanup program by accepting liability for any contamination and providing financial assurance to address contamination. Financial assurance would not be required if the landfill had received solid waste from a local government (which was often the case). This is a very odd provision in several ways:

♦ Under current law, DEQ has responsibility for assessment and cleanup of pre-1983 landfill sites;  revenue from a statewide solid waste disposal tax pays for the remediation. Under the new provision, a property owner would  waive state responsibility for cleanup and potentially accept environmental liability they might not otherwise have.

♦ The provision has not been restricted to sites that present a low environmental  risk; the only limitations seem to be the property owner’s willingness  to take on the liability and ability to provide financial assurance if required.

♦ The provision describes the opt-out as a “suspension” of the state cleanup program for as long as the person owns the property. That clearly means the state itself would not undertake any assessment or cleanup activity on the site, but the law does not suspend enforcement of state groundwater standards and other environmental remediation requirements. Those programs normally seek remediation by the person(s) responsible for the contamination; under the new provision, the property owner  must volunteer for the liability whether they contributed to the contamination or not.

♦  The implication of a “suspension” is that the state may again have responsibility for the site if it changes ownership in the future. Suspending environmental remediation until a change of ownership could simply delay necessary cleanup activities without regard to environmental risk.

It isn’t clear why a property owner would ever choose to do this.

The budget bill also requires a study of DEQ’s use of revenue from the solid waste disposal tax. The opt-out in Section 13.4  may be a hint of additional changes to the solid waste disposal tax and the state cleanup program for pre-1983 landfills.

     Water Quality: Nutrient Pollution.  The (now annual) budget provision concerning nutrient management strategies directs DEQ to use $1.3 million to test use of algaecides and phosphorus-locking technologies as an alternative to state rules imposing tighter wastewater limits and stormwater controls to address excess nutrients  in  Falls Lake and Jordan Lake. Those rules have been temporarily suspended by the legislature.  (For background on the nutrient rules, see a previous post;  the proposal for an automatic sunset  of the nutrient rules described in the earlier  blogpost was ultimately replaced by legislation further delaying implementation of the rules and a university-based study.)  Based on discussion in committee, legislators had a specific technology developed by a North Carolina-based company in mind.

NC Senate: Proposed 2017 Budget

May 10, 2017.  Some highlights of the state budget proposed by Senate leadership as it affects environmental programs:

Money. The Senate budget continues  a nearly 10-year trend of cuts in environmental programs. An earlier post described some of the impacts of previous  budget cuts that began with the  2008 recession (including a 9% reversion of already-budgeted funds in 2009) and continued after the economy began to recover.

The Senate’s proposed budget for 2017 would reduce state appropriations to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) by nearly $7 million.  That represents a 10% reduction in state appropriations and a 3% reduction in the department’s overall budget (which also includes federal grant funds and permit fees).

The reductions include:

♦ A $3.5 million discretionary cut,  which means DEQ will have to identify  reductions within the department’s operating budget.

♦  A $1 million transfer of funds  to the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to challenge an EPA rule defining federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Under the McCrory administration, DEQ had joined  a number of other states in suing over the federal rule.  The Cooper administration dropped out of the litigation and the Senate provision would fund DACS  to continue the state’s participation in that litigation.

♦ The budget eliminates  56.5 positions from existing DEQ programs:

      32.5 positions in the Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service. Those cuts affect non-regulatory waste reduction, recycling,  water/energy efficiency and  permit assistance programs. The cuts would effectively eliminate DEQ programs that work with business/industry to voluntarily reduce waste generation which allows those businesses and industries  to reduce their regulatory burden and save money.

      14 regional office support positions. DEQ’s seven regional offices house frontline permitting and enforcement staff for multiple environmental programs. The legislature has targeted DEQ  regional offices for staff cuts in the past. This provision requires a reduction of an additional 2 positions in each  regional office. It is not clear which DEQ programs would be affected.

      5  administrative positions. The Senate bill  identifies specific jobs for elimination, including  DEQ’s Chief Deputy Secretary,  the Legislative Affairs Program Manager; a communications position; and the last two environment education positions remaining in the department.

      3 positions in the N.C. Geodetic Survey

      1 position in the Land Quality Section of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources

      1 position in the Division of Marine Fisheries

Policy provisions in the budget bill. The budget bill includes a number of changes in state law or policy related to environmental programs:

♦  Conditions on use of funds the state may receive as a result of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s settlement with Volkswagen for violations of the Clean Air Act (Sec. 13.2 )  The Senate provision sets criteria for use of the funds and requires legislative approval of a DEQ plan for the funds.

♦  A provision  that allows the owners of old landfill sites to avoid environmental cleanup requirements by: 1. Accepting liability for onsite and offsite contamination; and 2. Providing financial assurance for any environmental harm.  There is an exception for property owners who did not receive compensation to accept local government waste for disposal. The provision affects a state program to assess and cleanup contamination associated with landfills and trash dumps that never met standards for solid waste landfills adopted in 1983. (iSec. 13.4).

♦  Changes to laws governing the Marine Fisheries Commission (Sec. 13.17) . The provision reduces the MFC from nine members to seven members and requires a super-majority of five  members to take any action — including adoption of rules. As with most state commissions, current law only requires a simple majority of the MFC to take most actions although a super-majority is required for adoption of fisheries management plans.

♦  A moratorium on wind energy projects (Sec. 24.2). The bill would prevent DEQ from issuing permits for new wind energy projects until December 31. 2020. During the moratorium, the bill would require a study of the impact of wind energy facilities on military operations in the state. Note; the process for approval of wind energy facilities already requires Federal Aviation Administration review and  input from military  installations.

2016 Legislative Session in Review: Environmental Legislation

July 12, 2016. The 2016 General Assembly session resulted in changes to several environmental laws, but ended without final action on a major regulatory reform bill.  Among the more significant environmental provisions enacted outside the budget bill:

Coal Ash. House Bill 630 eliminated the Coal Ash Management Commission, giving the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) authority to make decisions about final closure of coal ash impoundments.  The bill also changed the criteria for prioritizing impoundment closures and required Duke Energy to provide a permanent alternative water supply to  well owners within 1/2 mile of a coal ash impoundments (unless separated from the impoundment by a river or lake) and to other well owners potentially affected by the migration of groundwater contamination from the impoundments. See an earlier post for more detail on H630  changes to the 2014 Coal Ash Management Act.

Commissions.  House Bill 630 responded to the Governor’s constitutional objections to three state regulatory commissions — the Coal Ash Management Commission, the Oil and Gas Commission, and the Mining Commission. The Governor successfully challenged  the laws creating  all three commissions as violating separation of powers; in part, the Governor objected to the legislature’s power to appoint a majority of each commission’s members.  A post on the N.C. Supreme Court decision can be found here.  The Governor vetoed an earlier bill (Senate Bill 71)  attempting to resolve the separation of powers issue by giving the Governor a majority of commission appointments.  The Governor’s position  on Senate Bill 71 suggested an ongoing objection to any  commission exercising executive powers unless the Governor had authority to appoint a majority of the members without legislative confirmation;  direct the actions of the commission;  and remove commissioners at will.

The Governor’s Office reportedly accepted H630 as a compromise. The  bill eliminates the Coal Ash Management Commission,  but retains the Oil and Gas Commission and the Mining Commission under conditions the Governor had previously objected to — legislative confirmation of appointees and the ability to remove commissioners only for cause. [Note: Although there have been indications that the Governor’s Office agreed to H630, the Governor has not yet signed the bill.]

Renewable Energy. Two provisions in Senate Bill 770 (N.C. Farm Act of 2016) amended laws related to renewable energy specifically to benefit agricultural sources, such as swine waste-to-energy projects. Sec. 10 of the bill extends the state’s renewable energy tax credit (25% of project costs)  to projects in service by January 1, 2020 (previously January 1, 2017) as long as the facility began construction by December 31, 2013.  The extension will likely benefit some swine waste-to-energy projects that have been in the works for several years, but are not yet generating electricity. Sec. 18 of the same bill gives  poultry and swine waste-to-energy projects priority over other renewable energy generation projects in connecting to electric utility delivery systems.

Sediment Pollution. Sec. 14 of Senate Bill 770 amends G.S. 113A-52.01 to add production of  “[m]ulch, ornamental plants, and other horticultural products”  to the list of agricultural activities exempt from the state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (or “Sediment Act”). The Sediment Act otherwise requires activities disturbing an acre or more to maintain a stream buffer and use erosion barriers to keep sediment out of rivers, lakes and streams. The addition of ornamental plants will not raise many questions, but mulch is not an agricultural product similar to the others. Including mulch production in the Sediment Act exemption will raise two questions:

1. What kinds of operations will be covered by the mulch exemption?  Mulch operations include  large-scale municipal  waste disposal facilities that mulch yard waste and have no relationship to agriculture.

2. How will the mulch exemption affect Clean Water Act permitting? The exemption seems to go beyond the federal stormwater exemption for agriculture. That is important because most land-disturbing activities in N.C.  meet federal construction stormwater requirements by complying with the state Sediment Act.  If the Sediment Act exempts activities that don’t also fall under a Clean Water Act stormwater exemption, the activity may require  a separate federal stormwater permit.

What didn’t happen.   Several efforts to enact legislation significantly restricting wind energy development  failed, although Sen. Harry Brown has already indicated an intent to reintroduce a bill prohibiting erection of wind turbines in designated military air corridors in 2017. Proposals to repeal the ban on landfill disposal of electronics and to end the state’s electronics recycling program also failed.  Legislators apparently could not reach agreement on bills attempting to clarify the protocol for advising well owners on the heath effects of well contamination — an issue sparked by controversies over conflicting advice given to well owners near coal ash impoundments; those bills never got to a floor vote. The Senate received House Bill 593 (Amend Environmental Laws 2)  from the House and expanded the bill to include a number of additional  provisions on stormwater, beach nourishment, stream mitigation and other issues. The House did not concur in the Senate changes, leaving those proposals to die with adjournment.

Regulating Renewable Energy Away?

May 11, 2016.  North Carolina’s General Assembly has been engaged in an internal battle over state renewable energy policy since 2013. That year, Republican legislators first introduced a bill to repeal the state’s renewable energy portfolio standard; the REPS law requires electric utilities to gradually increase the amount of power generated from renewable sources such as wind, solar and waste combustion. (For more on the REPS issue, see earlier posts here and here.)  The 2013 REPS repeal bill failed; similar bills to repeal or significantly limit the REPS requirement have been introduced every year since without success. Opponents of renewable energy subsidies did succeed in eliminating a state tax credit for renewable energy projects effective December 31, 2015.

In the just-convened 2016 legislative session, opposition to renewable energy has taken a new form — a  bill to put significant regulatory constraints on development of renewable energy projects. Senate Bill 843 (Renewable Energy Property Protection) expands an existing wind energy permitting law to cover other types of renewable energy facilities and adds new permitting requirements and regulatory standards.  Key provisions in Senate Bill 843:

Scope.  The bill applies to most renewable energy facilities other than hydroelectric plants, including solar,  wind and  waste-to-energy combustion projects. The proposed permitting standards do not apply to solar panels installed on single-family homes or to  “biomass resources”.  Since the bill only excludes solar installations on  single-family homes, the new permitting standards presumably apply to solar panels installed on commercial and institutional buildings (such as schools and churches) as well as utility-scale solar projects. It isn’t clear what the exclusion for  “biomass resources” means;  the term could be applied to plant-based fuels as well as combustion of animal waste.

Additional steps in the permitting process. Those steps include: 1. a  pre-application meeting with state regulators at least 120 days before submission of the permit application; 2. submission of pre-application project information 45 days before the meeting; and 3. notice of the pre-application meeting to federal regulatory agencies (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and to “any other party [DEQ] deems relevant”. The bill also expands an existing wind energy permitting requirement  for a “scoping” meeting 60 days before application to all renewable energy projects —  even though the new pre-application meeting  and the scoping meeting seem to involve the same participants and much of the same information. See G.S. 143-215.118.

Addition of new standards for denial of renewable energy permits. The existing law setting standards for issuing or denying wind energy projects would be amended to cover all renewable energy projects and to add  two new grounds for permit denial. The new permit denial standards:

♦ Operation of the facility would cause ambient noise levels to exceed 35 decibels at the property line.

♦ The applicant failed to meet new financial assurance requirements for decommissioning the facility.

See the existing text of  G.S. 143-215.120 for the existing permit denial standards.

Setback and buffer requirements for wind and other renewable energy facilities. All wind and other renewable energy facilities would have to be sited 1 1/2 miles from the property line of an adjacent property. For comparison,  some examples of property line setback requirements for other state-permitted facilities and activities are shown below.

Facility/Activity Property Line Setback
Oil and gas production (including wells and drilling waste storage)  0 ft
Major air pollutant sources  0 ft
Land application sites for septage  50 ft
Hazardous waste landfills  200 ft
Swine house or  swine waste lagoon  500 ft

A quick search did not turn up an existing  state-imposed property line setback of greater than  500 feet.

S 843 also requires wind and renewable energy facilities to be setback from all easements and rights of way for a state road or municipal street by a distance equal to 2 1/2 times the height of a wind turbine. Some wind turbines proposed in N.C. have a tower height of around 300 feet and total height (based on extension of one blade straight up)  of nearly 500 feet, resulting in a  road setback of 800-1250 feet.

New requirements for decommissioning a renewable energy facility, including financial assurance for decommissioning. The bill requires the owner/operator of a wind or renewable energy facility to remove all equipment and buildings and return the site to predevelopment conditions within one year after ceasing operation. The requirement seems to be unprecedented as applied to a utility or commercial development project.  To the extent existing laws include reclamation  or closure standards, the standards generally focus on eliminating specific safety hazards (appropriately closing abandoned wells); taking steps to prevent environmental degradation (capping closed landfills)  and restoring disturbed areas to provide stability and prevent erosion.  State permitting programs  do not normally require the owner/operator to return a site to pre-development conditions by removing buildings and equipment.

S 843  also makes the owner/operator responsible for “properly recycling each piece of equipment used in the facility”.  State law already prohibits landfill disposal of specific types of waste such as aluminum cans, scrap tires and computer equipment. (See G.S. 130A-310 for a complete list of materials banned from landfill disposal.)  S 843 appears to go much further and require recycling of all equipment used in a renewable energy facility.  The recycling requirement for renewable energy facilities looks particularly burdensome by comparison to a 2013 state law allowing  demolition debris from a decommissioned electric generation station to be buried on site. See G.S. 130A-301.3.

Strict liability for damages caused by construction, maintenance, operation, decommissioning, disassembly or demolition of a renewable energy facility. The bill would impose strict liability on the owner/operator of a renewable energy facility. “Strict liability” means the owner/operator  could be held liable for personal injury or property damage caused by the activity even if the damage was not the result of  intentional misconduct, negligence, or violation of any regulatory standard. Strict liability  can also deny the  owner/operator the benefit of some usual defenses against a damage claim — such as the defense that the injured person caused or contributed to their own injury. Usually,  strict liability is reserved for inherently dangerous activities where it provides an incentive for extra caution on the part of the person engaged  in the activity.  Very few  N.C. laws create strict liability for personal injury or property damage;  one applies to   owners of dangerous dogs and another makes parents responsible for damage caused by their minor child.   A few laws create a sort of limited strict liability.  For example, state law generally assumes a  hydraulic fracturing operation  will be liable for contamination of a water supply located within 5,000 feet of a natural gas well. But in that case, the presumption of liability only applies to one type of injury  occurring in a very specific  set of circumstances  — not to all injury or damage caused by a  fracking operation.

Taken together, the provisions in Senate Bill 843 treat renewable energy facilities as a serious threat to public safety and the environment.

Appointments to Environment/Energy Commissions Violated N.C. Constitution

February 1, 2016. On January 29, 2016, the N.C. Supreme Court issued a decision in McCrory v. Berger — a lawsuit filed  by Governor Pat McCrory  to challenge the constitutionality of two recent state laws that created new executive branch commissions dominated by legislative appointees. The ruling in the Governor’s favor means the three commissions cannot act until the General Assembly changes the statutes governing commission appointments.

Background. The lawsuit concerned appointments to the Coal Ash Management Commission,  the Oil and Gas Commission,  and the Mining Commission. The Coal Ash Management Act of 2014  gave the Coal Ash Management Commission authority to (among other things) make final decisions on closure of coal ash impoundments.  The 2014 Energy Modernization Act eliminated the  Mining and Energy Commission (created in 2012) and divided its regulatory responsibilities  between a new Oil and Gas Commission and a reconstituted Mining Commission. In each case, the legislature gave itself the power to appoint a majority of the commission members.

The lawsuit filed by Gov. McCrory argued the legislative appointments violated the N.C. Constitution. In March of 2015, a special panel of three superior court judges ruled in the Governor’s favor, concluding that the N.C. Constitution bars legislative appointments to commissions that have executive authority. “Executive authority” generally means authority to implement existing laws as distinct from legislative authority to adopt new laws.   See an earlier post  on the superior court decision.

N.C. Supreme Court opinion. The N.C. Supreme Court opinion disagrees with the superior court decision on one key point — the Supreme Court ruled that the N.C. Constitution does not entirely bar the legislature from making appointments to executive branch commissions.  The court interpreted the Constitution’s “appointments clause” to allow the legislature to make appointments to statutorily-created offices including commission seats. The court ruled, however, that  legislative appointments to the Coal Ash Management Commission,  Oil and Gas Commission  and Mining Commission violated the separation of powers clause in Art. I, § 6 of the N.C. Constitution,  which requires that  “[t]he legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.”

The court concluded that the appointments scheme for the three executive branch  commissions interfered with the Governor’s constitutional duty to insure that state laws are faithfully executed:

In light of the final executive authority that these three commissions possess, the Governor must have enough control over them to perform his constitutional duty. The degree of control that the Governor has over the three commissions depends on his ability to appoint the commissioners, to supervise their day-to-day activities, and to remove them from office.

The court pointed to three factors that combined to create an unconstitutional legislative  interference with the Governor’s executive powers and responsibilities:

1. Each commission has authority to take final executive action  (i.e., the Coal Ash Management Commission has the final authority to prioritize coal ash ponds for closure and approve final closure plans);

2. The legislature appointed a majority of the members to each commission; and

3. The legislature limited the Governor’s ability to remove commission members by allowing removal only for cause (such as misconduct).

The implication of the decision is that a separation of powers violation has occurred when all three conditions exist.  The court included a footnote specifically suggesting that the outcome may be different with respect to a body like the Rules Review Commission that exercises a different kind of authority.

The court refused to address another separation of powers issue raised in the case. The Governor  argued that the legislature also violated separation of powers  by statutorily directing the Coal Ash Management Commission (CAMC)  to operate “independently” of the executive department where it is housed.  (Legislation creating the CAMC placed the commission under the Department of Public Safety.) The Supreme Court held the issue had been mooted by the portion of its decision ruling appointments to the CAMC unconstitutional.  The issue could come up again if the  legislature changes the appointments statute in response to the court’s decision,  but leaves the “independence” provision  in place.

Implications.  The three commissions directly named in the case cannot act until the legislature changes the unconstitutional appointment provisions and new appointments are made.  The Coal Ash Management Commission (CAMC) began meeting in 2014, but has not met since the March 2015 superior court decision that first ruled appointments to the CAMC unconstitutional. In the meantime, other pieces of the Coal Ash Management Act have moved  forward; a newly appointed CAMC will need to catch up.  The Oil and Gas Commission took over implementation of state laws on oil and gas development from the Mining and Energy Commission, so the court’s ruling could delay decisions related to hydraulic fracturing.

Two other pending lawsuits  raising similar separation of powers issues may be affected by the McCrory v. Berger decision. The N.C. State Board of Education sued to challenge Rules Review Commission authority over rules adopted by the Board.  The Board of Education raises several constitutional issues, including a separation of powers violation based on the fact that all Rules Review Commission members are legislative appointees.   The McCrory v. Berger footnote about the Rules Review Commission seems to caution against assuming the court would also find  RRC  appointments to violate separation of powers.   The footnote suggests that the Rules Review Commission’s specific function — to review and object to rules adopted by executive branch agencies — may put it in a different category than the commissions addressed in McCrory v. Berger.

Another pending separation of powers case  in Wake County Superior Court challenges the constitutionality of appointments to the Mining and Energy Commission (MEC). The MEC  seems to fit the McCrory v. Berger template: the commission had authority to take executive actions; the legislature made a majority of commission appointments; and the Governor only had the power to remove a commission member for cause. But the case also presents an additional question: Are actions taken by an unconstitutionally appointed commission void? Over a two-year period, the MEC developed and adopted state rules for hydraulic fracturing.  Plaintiffs in the MEC case (Haw River Assembly and a Lee County property owner) have asked the Wake County judge to rule appointments to the MEC unconstitutional and  void the rulemaking actions already taken by the commission.  The superior court judge had delayed hearing the MEC case until the N.C. Supreme Court issued a decision in McCrory v. Berger. While the Supreme Court decision now provides a roadmap for addressing the separation of powers issue, it doesn’t provide any guidance on how a separation of powers violation affects past commission actions.

2015 in Review — Legislation

January 12, 2016. Some trends in environmental legislation:

Limiting Local Government Authority. After several years of legislation limiting the regulatory authority of state environmental agencies, the General Assembly turned to local government.

♦   Senate Bill 119  (Session Law 2015-264)  may have the practical effect of  eliminating local government  authority to regulate shale gas operations under  zoning, land use, stormwater, health,  and sedimentation control ordinances.  In 2014,  Session Law 2014-4  preempted local ordinances that  “would prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, or use of horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing for that purpose”.   But the 2014 law created a presumption that local zoning and land use ordinances applicable to other types of development  (such as zoning, setbacks, buffers  and stormwater standards) could also apply to shale gas operations.

Senate Bill 119  rewrites  the 2014 provision to completely  preempt  local ordinances.  The new Oil and Gas Commission (replacing the Mining and Energy Commission) now has power to preempt the application of  local development ordinances even if  the ordinance would not preclude shale gas development or conflict with state standards.  Although the presumption  in favor of zoning and land use ordinances still appears in the law, the 2015 amendments direct the Commission to preempt a local ordinance at the request of the shale gas developer if the  drilling operation has received  state/federal permits and the Commission finds that exploration and development

…will not pose an unreasonable health or environmental risk to the surrounding locality and that the operator has taken or consented to take reasonable measures to avoid or manage foreseeable risks and to comply to the maximum feasible extent with applicable local ordinances.

In effect,  the Oil and Gas  Commission can set aside any  local ordinance and substitute its judgment about risk for that of local elected officials. Preemption of local ordinances could have several implications —

1. Complete preemption of local ordinances may  leave gaps in basic regulation of shale gas activities  since state standards do not address a number of   issues normally dealt with by local government such as noise,  traffic, solid waste disposal (trash — not drilling waste), and open burning.

2.  The law potentially allows preemption of local  stormwater ordinances needed to  meet state water supply watershed protection standards; comply with federal stormwater permits; or  minimize flooding.    The Environmental Management Commission has adopted stormwater rules  for shale gas operations, but those  rules expressly recognize that additional stormwater standards may apply to a particular operation and reserve the right to apply those standards — whether implemented by DEQ or by a local government.  The new preemption language in Senate Bill 119 does not recognize the possibility that local stormwater ordinances may be required under state or federal law.

3.  The provision  raises a question about implementation of  sedimentation control requirements through local sedimentation programs. The state’s Sedimentation Pollution Control Act allows cities and counties to take over implementation of the sedimentation program. In areas with local programs, sedimentation control requirements are set and enforced through local ordinances.  Nothing in Senate Bill 119 prevents the Oil and Gas Commission from preempting a local sedimentation ordinance.

♦  House Bill 44  included two provisions limiting local government authority to adopt or enforce other types of development ordinances —

Section 2 bars  local governments from enforcing a “voluntary” state environmental rule,  but defines “voluntary” rule in a creative way to include any state rule  that has  been repealed;  has been adopted, but is not yet in effect; or has been “temporarily or permanently held in abeyance”.  The last category would cover the  Jordan Lake water quality rules that have been delayed by legislative action.  Preventing  local enforcement  of existing Jordan Lake stormwater ordinances  may have been the main purpose of the provision, but it could also raise questions about the enforceability of other local ordinances. No one has  attempted to catalog all of the local ordinances that include requirements that once appeared in a now-repealed state rule or are proposed to be included in a new state rule that has not yet been adopted.   The House Bill 44 provision seems to assume that local environmental ordinances always follow  state regulatory action; it  ignores direct grants (by the General Assembly) of local government authority to  adopt ordinances to protect  public health and the environment.  For more on the implications of this provision,  see an earlier post.

Section 13  limits local government authority to adopt riparian buffer requirements.  The bill defines “riparian buffer”  to mean any setback from surface waters —  which could include a setback imposed for flood control.  (The definition seems broader than other  language in the provision  specifically referring  to  riparian buffers for water quality protection.) Under the bill, a local government cannot adopt and enforce a riparian buffer ordinance for water quality protection  that  goes beyond requirements of state or federal law or the conditions of a state or federal permit unless the EMC  approves the ordinance.

Shielding Evidence of Possible Environmental Violations

♦  House Bill 765  (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015)  creates a new legal  privilege for information contained in an environmental audit report. (Companies use environmental audits  to identify  compliance problems;  opportunities for waste reduction;  and operational changes to reduce environmental impacts.)   Information covered by the privilege does not have to be shared with regulators and cannot be used by  regulatory agencies to document an environmental violation in  a civil enforcement case.   The privilege does not apply in a criminal  case, but the vast majority of environmental enforcement actions rely on civil rather than criminal penalties. See the section on environmental audit privilege/self-disclosure immunity in this earlier post for more on the scope of the privilege.

♦   House Bill 405    allows an employer to take legal action against an employee who 1. enters a “nonpublic” area of the workplace;  2.  takes photographs, makes recordings, or copies records without permission; and 3.  uses those documents “against the interest of the employer”.   The employer can sue the employee  for  monetary damages,  including legal fees and a $5,000 per day penalty.   Animal rights activists referred to House Bill 405  as the “Ag-Gag” bill — a term used for legislation targeting activists who go undercover on farms and in  processing facilities to document animal cruelty violations. But House Bill 405 is not limited to agricultural workers or documentation of animal cruelty. The bill could also be used to punish an employee who documents  illegal dumping of hazardous  waste and shares the evidence with regulators or the media.  See an earlier post for more on House Bill 405.

Lessening the Consequences for Some Environmental Violations.

♦  House Bill 765 grants immunity from civil penalties and fines for environmental violations that are voluntarily disclosed to state regulators.  The bill defines “voluntary” disclosure;  immunity would not apply to violations  documented  through information the company has a legal duty to report under state or federal law, for example. The bill limits how often a person (or company) can claim self-disclosure immunity — no more than once every two years; twice in a five-year period; and three times in a ten-year period.  The bill never defines “civil penalties and fines”, leaving a question about the breadth of the immunity.  For example, the bill is silent on whether “civil penalties and fines” includes natural resource damages such as  fish kill damages assessed for a wastewater spill. For a more detailed comparison to past state and present U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement policies on self-disclosed violations, see an earlier post.

♦  A provision in the budget bill (S.L. 2015-241) limits the total civil penalty for ongoing  violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to $25,000 if: 1. the violator had not previously been assessed a penalty for a sedimentation violation (which does not necessarily mean the person has not previously violated the law); and 2. the violator addresses damage caused by the violations within 180 days.  Previously, the law allowed the Department of Environmental Quality to assess a maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation, per day for continuing sedimentation violations. The fact that the meter on civil penalties could run until the violator addressed the problem created a powerful incentive for quick response — even though DEQ rarely assesses the maximum penalty. Quick action to correct a violation  translates to  less stream damage from uncontrolled erosion and sedimentation.  The recent amendments have the somewhat perverse effect of assuring the violator that  sedimentation violations can go uncorrected for nearly six months without resulting in an increased penalty.  The provision also means that committing numerous sedimentation violations on the development site will result in the same penalty as a single violation.  The new cap on continuing violation penalties also applies to penalties assessed by local sedimentation programs.

♦ House Bill 765  amends existing state laws to allow broader use of “risk-based”  cleanup  of environmental contamination. In a risk-based cleanup, the person responsible for environmental  contamination is not required to fully restore contaminated soil and groundwater. A risk-based  cleanup plan relies on a combination of limited remediation and land-use controls (such as deed restrictions) that prevent exposure to contamination  remaining on the site after the partial cleanup.  Groundwater cleanup costs represent a significant consequence of violating environmental laws — often exceeding penalties assessed by regulators — so  allowing a  more limited cleanup reduces the cost of violating the law.  (It also means the groundwater may remain contaminated and unusable for a very long time.)

House Bill 765 extends the benefits of lower cost, risk-based cleanup to several categories of  contaminated sites that had been  excluded  under  the state’s  2011  law  allowing risk-based remediation of  industrial contamination. Two of those categories broaden the use of risk-based remediation in ways that may undermine incentives for present environmental compliance:

—  New contamination incidents.  House Bill 765 repeals statute language  limiting use of risk-based remediation to contamination  reported  before the 2011 risk-based remediation law went into effect.  In 2011, allowing risk-based cleanup of industrial sites was seen as an incentive for remediation of properties with longstanding contamination  —  often resulting from activities that had been lawful at the time. Remediation costs remained  a significant incentive for present-day compliance with environmental standards. Removing the date restriction means that a  risk-based cleanup will now be an option for new contamination incidents resulting from activities violating current environmental laws.

—  Sites contaminated by petroleum releases from above-ground  storage tanks (ASTs).  There has long been a risk-based cleanup program for petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs),  but UST operators also have to meet extensive regulatory standards to  prevent future pollution incidents.  House Bill 765 gives AST owners  the benefit of risk-based cleanup without regulatory standards to prevent future releases.

Eliminating or Streamlining State Permit Requirements for Environmental Infrastructure

♦ The state budget (S.L. 2015-241)  includes a provision that changes landfill permitting, allowing issuance of a single “life of site” permit to cover construction and operation of a landfill that  often has a 30-year lifespan.  State rules had previously  required review and approval of the entire landfill site before construction, but also required each 5 or 10-year phase of the landfill to have a construction and operation permit.   Landfill construction will continue to be done in phases for economic and practical reasons,  but the “life of site permit” eliminates state compliance review for each new  phase of the landfill.   The change also seems to close the door on  new permit conditions for construction or operation of later landfill phases in response to scientific or  technological developments. The budget provision does not set minimum landfill inspection requirements in place of the 5 and 10-year phased permit reviews.

♦ House Bill 765 creates a new private permitting option for septic systems and other small on-site wastewater systems now permitted by local health departments. The provision  allows  a property owner to hire an engineer and soil scientist to approve the location and design of the system. The local health department will receive information about the system, but the engineer’s approval substitutes for a permit. It isn’t clear that  the laws allows the health department to prevent construction of an engineer-certified system based on inconsistency with state siting and design standards.

Skepticism about State Water Quality Rules. The 2015 General Assembly continued to focus on water quality rules and particularly those affecting real estate development activities — such as stormwater standards, wetland and stream mitigation requirements, and riparian buffer protection rules.

♦ The state budget includes a special provision further delaying implementation of the Jordan Lake water quality rules for  another 3 years or one year beyond completion of the Solar Bee pilot project (whichever is later). See an earlier post  here on the  2013 legislation creating the pilot project. The rules had been developed by the state’s Environmental Management Commission to address poor water quality  caused by  excess nutrients reaching the lake in wastewater discharges and  runoff from agricultural lands and developed areas.  Since adoption of the rules, the legislature has taken repeated steps over several legislative sessions to delay compliance deadlines in the rules. This session,  the  legislature also barred local government enforcement of stormwater ordinances adopted to comply with the Jordan Lake rules.

♦ House Bill 765  limits  regulatory authority and mitigation requirements for isolated wetlands and intermittent streams. (Isolated wetlands are wetlands that fall outside federal permitting jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act because the wetlands lack a connection to “navigable waters”.)  These provisions continue a several-year legislative trend toward limiting  protections for wetlands and waters to the minimum required under federal law.

♦ Some proposals to significantly roll back other water quality rules (particularly stormwater and  riparian buffer rules) failed this session, but became the subject of legislatively mandated studies. Among the studies required before the April 2016 legislative session: a study of coastal stormwater rules; a study on the feasibility of entirely exempting linear utility projects (such as pipelines) from  environmental standards;  and an Environmental Review Commission study of the  state stormwater program.

Expanding Use of Erosion Control Structures on Ocean and Inlet Shorelines

♦ A   provision in the budget bill  (S.L. 2015-241)  changes state rules on use of sandbag  structures on the oceanfront.  Rules adopted by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission have limited use of protective sandbag structures to situations where a building faces an imminent erosion threat. (These sandbag  structures are substantial in size and can have many of the same long-term impacts as permanent seawalls; the rules do not apply to sandbags used to prevent water from entering a building during a flood event.)   The budget bill changes the standards to allow an oceanfront property owner to install a sandbag  structure to align with an existing sandbag structure on adjacent property without showing an imminent erosion threat to a building on their own property.

♦ The budget bill also increases the number of terminal groin structures that can be permitted at the state’s ocean inlets from four to six and identifies New River Inlet for location of two of the additional structures. See an earlier post  for more on earlier legislation allowing construction of terminal groins as a  pilot project. The latest provision continues a several-year trend of reducing regulatory requirements for approval of terminal groin projects and increasing the number of projects that can be permitted.

N.C. Environmental Legislation 2015: The Bills

October 12, 2015.   The legislative session finally ended  in the wee hours of September 30 and changes to state  environmental laws continued to be in play until the very end.   Several of the provisions discussed below were enacted as part of  House Bill 765 (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015) which has not yet been signed by the Governor. H 765 contains too many pieces to completely catalog here; some have been  very controversial.  The other bills referenced in the post have already become law.

Not a complete list, but some of the most significant changes affecting the environment:

“AG-GAG” LEGISLATION.   House Bill 405  allows an employer to take legal action against an employee who:  a.  takes photographs, makes recordings, or copies records; b. in a nonpublic area of the workplace; c.  without permission;  and d. uses those documents “against the interest of the employer”.   H 405 allows  the employer to sue the employee for monetary damages,  including legal fees and a $5,000 per day penalty. Animal welfare activists have characterized these kinds of  bills  as “ag-gag” legislation intended to prevent documentation of animal cruelty at agricultural operations.  House Bill 405,  however,  does not just affect agricultural workers or documentation of animal cruelty. The restrictions could also affect employee efforts to document ongoing environmental violations such as improper disposal of hazardous substances. See an earlier post for more on the implications of H 405. Note: Governor Pat McCrory vetoed H 405, but the General Assembly overrode the veto to allow the bill to become law.

FRACKING.  One of the final bills of the session, Senate Bill 119,  severely limits local regulation of  hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) operations.  First, a little background. 2014 legislation prevented local governments from banning fracking altogether, but G.S. 113-415.1 allowed  cities and counties to continue to apply ordinances applicable  to all development in the jurisdiction — such as zoning and stormwater ordinances —  to fracking operations.  The state’s Mining and Energy Commission had authority to override a  local ordinance that had the effect of precluding natural gas exploration and development.

Senate Bill 119 rewrites the  2014 law to invalidate all local ordinances that directly regulate fracking, preempting ordinances that go beyond or conflict with state standards for hydraulic fracturing operations.  The bill also allows the oil and gas operator to challenge the application of  more general local ordinances (such as zoning and stormwater ordinances) to fracking operations.  These challenges go to the state  Oil and Gas Commission (which has replaced the Mining and Energy Commission in regulating oil and gas operations). The Commission will  decide “whether or to what extent to preempt the local ordinance to allow for the regulation of oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities”.  The  2015 amendments clearly  give the Oil and Gas Commission very broad power to preempt even general development ordinances. Preemption does not require a finding that the ordinance precludes natural gas exploration and development or conflicts with state standards.  As long as the natural gas operator has received  state/federal permits, the bill seems to direct the Commission to preempt application of general development ordinances to fracking operations if the Commission finds that fracking

…will not pose an unreasonable health or environmental risk to the surrounding locality and that the operator has taken or consented to take reasonable measures to avoid or manage foreseeable risks and to comply to the maximum feasible extent with applicable local ordinances.

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. For over 40 years, the State Environmental Policy Act  (SEPA) has required environmental review of  projects involving expenditure of public funds or use of public lands.   An earlier post provides some background on SEPA.   House Bill 795  limits  environmental  review under SEPA to projects that:  1.  involve expenditures of $10 million or more in public funds;  or 2. affect 10 acres or more of public lands and result in permanent changes to the landscape.  The  new thresholds mean many public projects with potentially significant impacts will be exempt from SEPA review. For projects that still require SEPA review,  House Bill 795 narrows  the scope of review to  direct project impacts — excluding indirect impacts  and the combined effects of  similar projects. The final version of the bill made some exceptions to these changes as applied to interbasin transfers (the movement of water from one river basin to another for water supply).   All interbasin transfer  proposals will continue to require SEPA review without regard to the amount of public money or public land  involved and the scope of review will include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts.

In an ironic twist, H 795  requires the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)  to create a  new environmental review process for water/wastewater infrastructure projects that receive loans from the Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund or the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund.  Federal rules  require  those projects to go through an environmental review equivalent to review under the National Environmental Policy Act.  Eliminating SEPA review  for smaller revolving loan projects had the  unintended  effect  of shifting the projects back into a lengthier federal environmental review process. In short, legislators liberated the projects from SEPA  only to create a SEPA-like environmental review process to avoid the still worse fate of federal review. The entire debate over H 795 indicated a  lot of  confusion about how SEPA works and the likely impact of the bill.  See another post for more on the misconceptions about SEPA that seemed to shape H 795.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORDINANCES.   The legislature also  took aim at local environmental ordinances. Section 2 of  House Bill 44 includes a somewhat opaque provision barring local governments from enforcing “voluntary” state environmental rules. The words “voluntary” and “rule”  do not generally exist in the same space;  a rule, by definition is not voluntary.  The provision  may really be intended to stop local implementation of stormwater ordinances adopted to comply with the  Jordan Lake water quality rules.  Section 2  applies not just to local implementation of  the elusive  “voluntary” state rule, but also to implementation of state rules that have been repealed; rules that have been adopted, but are not yet in effect; or rules that are “temporarily or permanently held in abeyance”. The Jordan Lake rules fall into the last category as a result of earlier legislation delaying state implementation of the rules.

The new provision affects both issuance of new development permits and enforcement of conditions on permits that have already been issued. Barring enforcement of conditions on  previously issued permits  has implications for both developers and local governments.  The questions that immediately come to mind (using the Jordan Lake stormwater requirements as an example): Can development already permitted under the Jordan Lake stormwater standards  move ahead without meeting any stormwater requirements?  or Will the development require a modified permit to reflect  stormwater standards that might have applied prior to local adoption of the Jordan Lake stormwater ordinances?

Section 13 of House Bill 44 limits local government authority to adopt riparian buffer requirements.  The bill defines “riparian buffer”  to mean any setback from surface waters —  which could include a setback imposed for flood control.  But much of the provision has been written to refer specifically to  riparian buffers for the protection of water quality.   Under the bill, a local government cannot adopt and enforce a riparian buffer ordinance for water quality protection  that  goes beyond requirements of state or federal law (or the conditions of a state or federal permit) unless the Environmental Management Commission approves the ordinance.

The bill also requires riparian buffers affecting  residential lots  to be shown on the subdivision plat. And an unusual provision addresses development projects that meet riparian buffer requirements by designating buffers as common area or open space:

When riparian  buffers are placed outside of lots in portions of a subdivision that are designated as common areas or open space and neither the State nor its subdivisions holds any property interest in that riparian buffer area, the local government shall attribute to each lot abutting the riparian buffer area a proportionate share [of the buffer area] ….for purposes of development-related regulatory requirements based on property size, including, but not limited to, residential density and nonresidential intensity calculations and yields, tree conservation purposes, open space or conservation area requirements, setbacks, perimeter buffers, and lot area requirements.

Allocating buffers designated as common area to adjacent property owners for purposes of meeting development standards may create some complications for developers.  Instead of allowing common area buffers to be used to offset density limits (or other requirements) for the development as a whole, the bill requires the benefits to go to  individual  lot owners. For example,  a lot owner may be able to build on a greater percentage of the platted lot because a proportional share of the adjacent buffer would be counted toward the lot area. But whatever flexibility the lot owner gains will be lost to the developer who  can no longer use the riparian buffer common areas to offset  built-on area (for example)  throughout the development as a whole.

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT PRIVILEGE/SELF-DISCLOSURE IMMUNITY.  Two of the most important changes to state environmental law can be found in House Bill 765  (the Regulatory Reform Act of 2015). The bill creates a new privilege for information a company gathers on its own environmental violations, preventing use of the information in a civil case. (The privilege does not apply in a criminal prosecution.)   The bill also grants immunity from civil penalties and fines for environmental violations voluntarily disclosed to state regulators.  Supporters of the bill believe these protections will encourage companies to conduct environmental audits to identify and correct environmental violations more quickly.

The bill excludes certain types of information from the audit privilege (such as data required to be reported under state and federal law). Although the  bill  creates some exceptions to the audit privilege, most of the exceptions require state regulators to show the violator deceptively withheld information or failed to correct violations in a timely way — which may be difficult without access to the audit information itself. H 765 protects environmental audit information from use  in both civil penalty cases and in actions to compel cleanup of environmental contamination.

Although less clear, the  bill may also shield environmental audit information from a private plaintiff seeking compensation for personal injury or property damage caused by an environmental violation.   The section of the bill creating the audit privilege says flatly that the audit information “is privileged and, therefore, immune from discovery and is not admissible as evidence in civil or administrative proceedings”. That section of the bill does not limit the privilege to  environmental enforcement cases brought by the state.  On the other hand, the section of the bill  on  revocation of the audit privilege has been written only to allow the “enforcement agency” to ask a court to revoke the audit privilege.  The bill needs to be clarified in one direction or the other — either the privilege applies only to state enforcement actions or it applies to other civil actions and the opportunity to ask for revocation of the privilege  should  be broader.

The self-disclosure immunity provisions in H 765  grant immunity from civil penalties and fines based on voluntary disclosure of the violation.  The bill sets conditions that must be met to make a self-disclosure “voluntary”.  The final version of the bill also put limits on  how often a person (or company) can claim self-disclosure  immunity — no more than once every two years; twice in a five-year period; and three times in a ten-year period.  The bill never defines “civil penalties and fines”, leaving some questions about the breadth of the immunity being granted.  For example, the bill is silent on whether “civil penalties and fines” includes natural resource damages. (An example would be  fish kill damages assessed as a result of a wastewater spill.)

For a more detailed comparison to past DENR and present U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement policies on self-disclosed violations, see an earlier post.  Note: EPA has long opposed statutory audit privilege out of concern that  withholding information from regulators will  hamper effective environmental enforcement.

RISK-BASED REMEDIATION. House Bill 765 also makes changes to state laws allowing the person responsible for environmental  contamination (the “responsible party”) to do a partial cleanup of  groundwater and soil contamination by relying on land-use controls to limit future exposure to contamination that remains on the site.  The biggest changes:

♦  Sites where contamination has migrated onto adjacent properties would become eligible for risk-based cleanup.  Existing law requires  contamination that has migrated off the property where it originated to be remediated to “unrestricted use standards”  — meaning  levels safe for any possible land use without reliance on land use controls to prevent exposure to contamination.  That effectively means remediation of contaminated groundwater to meet  state groundwater standards. Risk-based cleanup of contamination on adjacent properties had not been allowed because of the additional complications of managing exposure to those contaminants on property the responsible party does not control. H 765  makes  a risk-based cleanup on adjacent property possible with the property owner’s permission. The cleanup would have to meet the same remediation standards applied to the  source site  with an additional stipulation that the remediation plan cannot cause contaminant levels on the adjacent property to actually increase.

♦ The bill removes statute language that had limited risk-based remediation to contaminated sites reported to DENR  before the risk-based remediation law went into effect in 2011, allowing   lower-cost, risk-based remediation as an option for future pollution events.

♦ H 765 adds new categories to an existing statutory list of sites excluded from these particular  risk-based remediation provisions.  The new exclusions cover coal ash disposal sites and animal waste management systems.

♦ The bill creates a separate risk-based remediation program for above-ground petroleum storage tanks (ASTs). The AST program closely follows  the model of the basic risk-based remediation statute, but imposes lower fees on the person responsible for cleanup.

WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN AFTER ALL.  Other high profile (and controversial) changes came and went as the legislation session wound down. Among the proposals discarded for now:

♦ Broad changes to riparian buffer rules.  Proposals to significantly roll back riparian buffer requirements for nutrient sensitive waters fell away in negotiations between the House and Senate.  Instead, House Bill 44 requires a study of the buffer rules, including ways to reduce regulatory burden on owners of property platted before their adoption.  The legislature did enact a few limited changes to buffer requirements.  House Bill  44 directs the Environmental Management Commission  to allow case-by-case modification of the requirement to maintain woody vegetation in riparian buffers  if the landowner shows that  alternative measures will provide equal or greater water quality protection. House Bill 765  alters  state stormwater rules to  (among other things)  allow more intensive development in riparian buffers along shellfish waters, outstanding resource waters and high quality waters if stormwater  from the development is collected, treated and discharged through the vegetated buffer. The provision doesn’t put any upper limit on the amount of impervious surface allowed in the area previously known as a buffer, so it isn’t clear how much vegetated buffer will remain to discharge the stormwater through.

♦ Repeal of state fees supporting electronics recycling programs. The repeal proposed by the Senate turned into a legislative study of electronics recycling.

♦  Repeal or significant  rollback  of the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio standard.  Efforts to freeze the REPS standard at 6% of retail sales failed. (Although not before popping up in multiple bills.)

♦  LImits on the state Environmental Management Commission’s authority to adopt federal air quality standards. The proposal could have put North Carolina’s delegated Clean Air Act program at risk. In the end, the General Assembly settled for a provision prohibiting the state air quality program from enforcing federal standards for wood heaters. The provision doesn’t have any real effect since  EPA has never delegated enforcement of the  standard for wood heaters to the states.

The  next session of the N.C. General Assembly convenes on April 25, 2016.