Congress Mulls New Clean Air Act Racecar Rules

Posted in Air, Federal, Legislation

Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., introduced Senate Bill 203, titled the Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act of 2017. The RPM Act would amend the Clean Air Act to clarify that it is legal to modify a road-going automobile into a racecar used exclusively on racetracks regardless of whether the car thereafter complies with the CAA’s emission standard. The RPM Act would also confirm that it is legal to manufacture, distribute, sell and install racing parts used to convert these vehicles for exclusive track use.

Read more about the possibility of EPA action in our Daily Journal article by clicking here.

Denver’s Green Roof Initiative

Posted in Colorado, Green Building, Greenhouse Gas

Green building legislation and, in particular, green roof legislation has been implemented outside of the United States for decades as one means of mitigating urban heat. In the past decade, local and state governments in the United States have joined in with a marked and steady uptick in the enactment of their own green building legislation. In the wake of the June 2017 announcement that the United States intends to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, representatives of many U.S. cities (including Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Salt Lake City), states, and companies have pledged to meet the U.S.’ greenhouse gas emissions targets under the Paris climate agreement. As a result, green building and other measures to mitigate air emissions, temperature increases, and environmental impacts within cities have become an even hotter topic of municipal discussions. As of Jan. 1, 2017, San Francisco gained the distinction of being the first U.S. city to mandate solar and living roofs on most new construction.

Denver now seems poised to follow in San Francisco’s green infrastructure footsteps. This year, the Denver Green Roof Initiative succeeded in getting a new initiative (Initiative 300), which would require many new buildings to install green roofs or solar panels to mitigate heat, onto the Nov. 2017 ballot. Critics argued that the city should incentivize rather than mandate the green roofs and the legislation was opposed by a sizeable contingent, including the Downtown Denver Partnership, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, and the organization “Citizens for a Responsible Denver.” Nevertheless, the initiative passed.

The initiative, as drafted, is modeled after San Francisco’s recent mandate and would modify the local building code to require green roofing or solar photovoltaics on a portion of the rooftops of new buildings over 25,000 square feet. The rooftop requirements increase 10 percent for every 50,000 square feet and are capped at 60 percent dedicated coverage for buildings of 200,000 square feet or more. Despite the passage of the initiative, it is yet to be seen how Initiative 300 will be implemented. Initiative 300 requires the creation of a technical advisory board to guide the creation of more detailed policies and procedures. Denver City Council also has the ability to change the ordinance with a two-thirds majority after a six-month period has elapsed. To that end, the next several months will likely include robust discussions regarding construction and implementation of green infrastructure mandates, generally, and Initiative 300, specifically, that may inform other municipalities considering similar initiatives.

Further discussion on the topic can be found in my upcoming article “Mitigation of Urban Heat Islands: Greening Cities with Mandates vs. Incentives,” which will be published in the Winter 2018 issue of the ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER) publication, “Cities.”

GT’s Environmental Practice Authors 2018 Chambers Environmental Law Global Practice Guide

Posted in Announcements, Environment

Greenberg Traurig’s Environmental Practice was selected to write the 2018 Chambers Environmental Law Global Practice Guide. The Practice Guide explores key topics facing the environmental sector including the regulatory landscape, enforcement, licensing and permitting, corporate, personal, and lender liability, climate change, and many other issues currently challenging the industry. To access the Practice Guide, please visit the Chambers website.

Does CERCLA Preempt State Medical Monitoring Claims?

Posted in Articles, CERCLA, Pennsylvania

An appeal pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit asks whether CERCLA preempts state law claims for medical monitoring in Giovanni v. U.S. Department of the Navy, No. 17-2473 (3d Cir.). This is an important issue in the context of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) because the exact health effects remain in dispute. Residents state PFCs from the U.S. Department of the Navy’s Willow Grove and Warminster facilities contaminated their drinking water. The two naval facilities are currently being cleaned up under the Superfund program. The district court dismissed the request for an injunction to require the Navy to fund a health effects study and medical monitoring because the court held that the residents’ claim constituted a challenge to an ongoing cleanup, which was barred by Section 113(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Read more from my article in The Legal Intelligencer supplement, PA Law Weekly, by clicking here.

Floating Infrastructure

Posted in Infrastructure, Real estate

Kerri L. Barsh, co-chair of Greenberg Traurig’s Environmental Practice, authored an article that was featured in Best Lawyers titled “Floating Infrastructure.” This article examines new opportunities in floating infrastructure within the context of their evolution as a result of a landmark admiralty jurisdictional case from the U.S. Supreme Court: Lozman v. The City of Riviera Beach. This case, and the court’s decision to treat Barsh’s client’s floating home as an extension of real estate, had major implications floating homes, casinos, restaurants and hotels throughout the United States and impacted the regulatory authority of state and local governments.

To read the full article, please click here.

Tax Credits for Wind and Solar Facilities Under the Republican Tax Plan

Posted in Federal, GT Alert, Legislation, Solar

On Thursday, Nov. 2, 2017, the House Republicans unveiled their long-awaited tax plan, which was introduced as a Bill (H.R. 1) entitled the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act” (the “Act”). While the Act has yet to be passed by the House, and it is likely to change in the legislative process, it contains proposals affecting the solar and wind industries which deserve to be carefully monitored. In addition to lowering income tax rates, which would, in general, make the tax benefits from investments in solar and wind facilities less valuable, as discussed in detail below, the Act would also make changes to the primary tax incentives relative to solar and wind facilities; namely, the investment tax credit and the production tax credit. While these changes may present planning opportunities, they also create issues and uncertainties, which hopefully will be clarified as the legislation progresses.

Continue Reading…

Federal Environmental Deregulation and Pennsylvania Operations

Posted in Articles, Federal Regulation, Pennsylvania

On Oct. 16, the Environmental Protection Agency published its proposal to repeal the carbon pollution emission guidelines for existing electric power plants, the centerpiece of the Clean Power Plan, 82 Fed. Reg. 48,035. That action serves as a reminder that the current national administration takes seriously its promise to deregulate business under the environmental laws. Indeed, the president claimed publication of the proposal as a significant accomplishment in a tweet on Oct. 15. In Pennsylvania, however, for the most part the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—not the federal EPA—issues permits and administers the environmental regulations because Pennsylvania’s regulatory program has been delegated or authorized under federal law to satisfy both state and federal requirements. Therefore, a relaxation of federal requirements would not necessarily imply a relaxation of the conditions that a regulated entity in Pennsylvania must meet.

Read more from my article in The Legal Intelligencer supplement, PA Law Weekly, by clicking here.

CNH Issues Round 3 Bidding Guidelines for Exploration and Production in Shallow Waters

Posted in Energy, Mexico, Regulatory

On Sept. 29, 2017, Mexico´s National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH) published the guidelines and model contracts for the first bidding process of “Ronda 3” (Round 3.1). Round 3.1 includes 35 exploration and production (E&P) contractual areas in shallow waters in the Gulf of Mexico, with a total surface of 26,265 km2 (10,140 mi2), approximately 1,988 million barrels of crude oil equivalent (MMBOE), and a remaining volume of 290 MMBOE. The contractual areas included in the bid are as follows:

  • 14 contractual areas located in the Burgos area, with a surface of 8,424 km2 (3,252 mi2), and 579 MMBOE of estimated prospective resources.
  • 13 contractual areas located in the Tampico-Misantla-Vercacruz area, with a surface of 12,493 km2 (4,823 mi2), 1,217 MMBOE of estimated prospective resources, and a remaining volume of 193 MMBOE.
  • 8 contractual areas located in the Southeast Basin area (Cuenca del Sureste), with a surface of 5,348 km2 (2,065 mi2), 192 MMBOE of estimated prospective resources, and a remaining volume of 96 MMBOE.

Continue Reading…

New Contracting Model for Energy Transmission Lines in Mexico

Posted in Energy, Infrastructure, International, Mexico

On Sept. 18 2017, Mexico’s Ministry of Energy (SENER) announced the new contracting model for energy transmission lines. The new model will allow the implementation of tender processes for the award and execution of contracts for the management of electricity transmission (Contracts) with private parties in order for them to carry out, on behalf of the Mexican State, the financing, installation, maintenance, management, operation, and expansion of the required infrastructure for the provision of public transmission services. These tender processes are part of Mexico’s efforts to modernize its transmission infrastructure, anticipating increases in electricity generation and demand, with the assistance of the private sector.

Continue Reading

How Will Pa. Implement the Environmental Rights Amendment?

Posted in Pennsylvania, State & Local

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s June decision in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Wolf, 161 A.3d 911 (Pa. 2017) (PEDF), has sparked many conversations about how the newly interpreted Environmental Rights Amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution will be implemented. In my column this month for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly I hope to catalogue at least some of the issues to help move the conversation along.

For most of the last 40 years, the courts have tested statutes, actions of the executive agencies and decisions of municipalities under the three-part test of Payne v. Kassab.  In PEDF, the court made clear that Payne’s test no longer governed. The first sentence of the Environmental Rights Amendment sets out an affirmative right of “the people” to “clean air, pure water, and the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.” Government cannot take action that impinges on that right without (a) evaluating the environmental effects of its action beforehand and (b) avoiding “unreasonable” adverse effects in light of the other governmental purposes of the action.

Further, the second sentence of the Amendment creates a trust, the corpus of which is all of the public natural resources of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is the trustee of that trust, and the beneficiaries are “all the people” including “generations yet to come.” When the Commonwealth sold some of that trust corpus in the form of natural gas leases in the state forests, it was obligated to use the proceeds to benefit the trusts’ purposes.

In Center for Coalfield Justice v. DEP, EHB Dkt. No. 2014‐072‐B (Aug. 15, 2017), appeal pending, No. 1290 CD 2017 (Pa. Commw. Ct. filed Sept. 15, 2017), the Environmental Hearing Board applied PEDF to a third-party challenge to two coal mine permit extensions affecting streams. A temporary impairment of a stream could be a reasonable incursion on the people’s first‐sentence constitutional right, but permanent loss of the stream would be unreasonable.

Almost every project has at least one opponent.  If every individual has a right to stop any project with any environmental impact, Pennsylvania will come to a grinding halt.  The Commonwealth must devise a way to implement Article I, section 27, so that it facilitates, and does not impede, useful change.

Read more from my article in The Legal Intelligencer supplement, PA Law Weekly, by clicking here.

LexBlog