Air

Subscribe to Air via RSS

Marketplace (February 24, 2014) – Peter Glaser, an Environmental Partner in Troutman Sanders’ Washington, D.C. office, offered comment during a Feb. 24 Marketplace broadcast on National Public Radio as to whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to require stationary sources like power plants to obtain permits for their greenhouse gas emissions.

Law360, New York (February 07, 2014,  4:13 PM ET) – Sean Sullivan, an Environmental Practice Partner in Troutman Sanders’ North Carolina office, authored an article in Law360 shedding light on 10 states recent petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to allow the states more control in regulating air pollution. The 10 Northeast states are asking the EPA to require 9 other Northern and Mid-Atlantic states to join the “Ozone Transport Region” which would then have more authority restrict air emissions in the 9 upwind states.

Troutman Sanders’ Partner Peter Glaser was quoted  in Greenwire’s recent article regarding Virginia state lawmakers’ attempt to limit the effect of forthcoming U.S. EPA carbon dioxide rules on their state’s utility sector. The Virginia Senate’s Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on January 29, 2014, on bill by GOP Sen. Charles Carrico that would direct state regulators to require utilities to adopt onlywidely deployed efficiency measures to complywith the federal rule.

Earlier this week, the governors of ten states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast took the first step towards asserting control over portions of nine other states’ authority to regulate air pollution.  The petitioning states, all of which are members of the 13-state Ozone Transport Region (the “OTR”), asked EPA to require the following upwind states to join the OTR:

EPA recently released its draft “FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan” for public review and comment.  The Plan generally outlines the Agency’s regulatory, policy, and enforcement goals for next year through 2018.  As part of the Plan, EPA summarizes its specific priorities for “Enforcing Laws and Assuring Compliance” with environmental requirements (pages 42-45).  EPA notes that it will pursue “vigorous civil and criminal enforcement” that will target “the most serious water, air, and chemical hazards in communities in order to obtain compliance.”

Back in July, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule, in which EPA exempted CO2 emitted by biological materials from its new greenhouse gas permitting program.  Normally, a “vacatur” is deadly for a rule – once a rule is vacated, courts must pretend as though it never existed at all.  But the D.C. Circuit withheld the issuance of its “mandate” for the vacatur of the Deferral Rule to allow time for the parties to file any petitions for rehearing.  As a result, the rule is still legally effective, in spite of the court’s decision in July to vacate it.

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it has granted petitions for certiorari in a case involving EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases. The Supreme Court will review the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 decision in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, in which a unanimous three-judge panel upheld EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, its motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations, and the so-called Timing and Tailoring Rules that implement EPA’s greenhouse gas permitting program for stationary sources like utilities and other industrial facilities.

Peter Glaser, one of our attorneys in Washington D.C. and an expert on climate change regulation who has testified before Congress many times, was recently quoted in a Reuters article attempting to predict EPA’s approach to regulating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants.  The article can be viewed here:  U.S. industry sees carbon-capture as legal chink in EPA rules.