In a landmark ruling signaling a new lens with which to view the treatment of interstate water allocation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on November 22 in Mississippi v. Tennessee, et al., 595 U.S. ___ (Case No. 21o143) rejecting Mississippi’s claim to sole ownership of waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer within that state’s borders. Instead, the Court held that the traditional remedy of equitable apportionment used to allocate surface waters of streams and rivers should apply. The case represents the first time that the Court has held that equitable apportionment applies to groundwater, which may open the door to new disputes among border states who claim equal rights to underground water resources.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 24, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly finalized a hotly contested proposed rule, adding natural gas processing facilities to the list of industry sectors required to report their releases of certain chemicals under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Facilities must report releases and waste management of specifically listed chemicals to the TRI if they: (1) have 10 or more full-time employees, (2) have a primary Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code listed in the regulations, and (3) manufacture, process, or otherwise use certain listed chemicals in the course of a calendar year in quantities exceeding identified thresholds.

Earlier this week, EPA published its proposed new methane regulations for the oil and gas sector. These new rules will have significant practical implications for the industry and have the potential to set new precedent for EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to address climate change for other industries as well. While the proposal is over 150 pages long, it does not include the actual text of the proposed rules, promising instead to provide proposed text in a supplemental notice early next year.

The U.S. Supreme Court has elected to hear a legal dispute over the scope of the authority granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing power plants. In orders issued October 29, the Court granted certiorari to four petitioners — West Virginia, North Dakota, the North American Coal Corporation, and Westmoreland Mining Holdings LLC — seeking reversal of a September 2020 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule.

On November 5, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the more than $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the bipartisan infrastructure framework (BIF). The Senate had already approved the bill back in August, and it now heads to the president’s desk for signature. The BIF represents a core piece of President Biden’s agenda and provides significant funding for infrastructure improvements in energy and water, including over $900 million in waterpower incentives for new and existing hydropower, pumped storage, and marine energy. Additional spending is provided for dam safety and removal.

Landowners and permit applicants received an email notification this week that the Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) would not be processing their requests for coverage under a variety of Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs). NWPs are general permits that authorize activities under Clean Water Act Section 404 that “will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately, and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment.” CWA Section 404 (e)(1).

The Biden EPA just did something unexpected — it decided to keep a Trump EPA rule, at least for the time being. The rule, known as “project emissions accounting” under the “New Source Review” (NSR) air permitting program, allows sources of air emissions to avoid permitting by using emission decreases to offset an increase that would otherwise need a permit. While largely procedural in nature, EPA’s decision to keep the rule is notable for a few reasons.

Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new “Strategic Roadmap (Roadmap),” describing a suite of ongoing and future agency actions to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). While many of these actions were previously presented in EPA’s 2019 PFAS Action Plan, or in more recent announcements, the Roadmap provides additional updates and clarity into the expected timing of some regulatory actions. The new projected dates for some key regulatory initiatives include the following:

At the end of September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued yet another memorandum regarding emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM) at stationary sources of air pollutants, such as refineries, manufacturing facilities, and power plants. This newest memo announces a return to the policy EPA announced in 2015, when it asked 45 states and local jurisdictions to change their locally written and previously EPA-approved rules. EPA’s goal in 2015 was to eliminate state rules that allow relief from penalties for “SSM” emissions. In 2020, the Trump EPA issued a memo allowing such rules under certain circumstances, but the newest EPA memo puts those rules back on the chopping block. This post provides a brief recap of the long-running debate over SSM emissions and a look forward into what is to come under EPA’s latest policy shift.

In an August 3 opinion in the case of Vecinos para el Bienestar de la Comunidad Costera et al. v. FERC, Case No. 20-1093, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) failed to adequately review the impacts of two proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on greenhouse gas emissions and environmental justice communities. The court remanded the proceedings to FERC for further consideration and explanation of these issues. Though the decision focused on FERC’s authorization of natural gas facilities, it signaled that the court will carefully scrutinize an agency’s obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a statute that has far-reaching applicability in the hydropower context.