Environmental and Policy Focus
Bloomberg - Jul 2
BP Plc reached a record $18.7 billion agreement to settle all federal and state claims from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill after an abrupt strategy shift in May to re-open talks, according to three people close to the matter. The company had been committed to fighting the claims in court after negotiations fell apart in 2013. But falling oil prices and a federal judge’s recent rulings putting a potential $13.7 billion price tag on Clean Water Act violations helped motivate BP to change tactics in May, said sources who asked not to be identified because negotiations were private. The agreement, while preliminary, specifies the payments will be spaced out over as long as 18 years. A record $5.5 billion will cover federal penalties under the Clean Water Act, topping the previous high of $1 billion. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas will also receive payouts for harm from the disaster, which claimed 11 lives and caused the worst offshore spill in U.S. history.
New York Times - Jun 29
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. Industry groups and about 20 states had challenged the EPA’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose. The Clean Air Act requires the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers argued the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis. Writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.” The majority rejected EPA's argument that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate and could instead defer that analysis to when it sets the emissions standards. The decision does not strike down the rule, but means EPA will have to rewrite it, taking financial impacts of the regulation into consideration.
Reuters - Jun 29
Sixteen states on Monday filed lawsuits against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, challenging a rule that they claim improperly expands the definition of the waterbodies subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. The actions are a coordinated challenge to an EPA rule issued on May 27 that defines the jurisdiction of the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over "waters of the United States," which include navigable rivers, streams, lakes, marshes and tributaries. The states argue that EPA's definition could include federal jurisdiction over man-made canals, dry ponds, ephemeral streams, intermittent channels, and ditches and infringe upon state regulation of private property rights. In their lawsuit, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana argue the rule is an “impermissible expansion of federal power over the states.” The second lawsuit, brought by a coalition of 13 states, similarly called the rule “unreasonable federal overreach.” EPA, in its statement, said that, under the regulation, waters protected by the Act are "more precisely defined, more predictably determined, and easier for businesses and industry to understand."
Courthouse News Service - Jun 29
The Sierra Club sued the Port of Stockton on June 24 in an effort to halt a rail expansion project that will facilitate the transport of millions of tons of coal in open-top rail cars to San Francisco Bay for export. The Sierra Club claims the Port of Stockton approved the 700 Yard Track Improvement Project without the environmental review it claims was required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Central California Traction Co., which runs the Port's rail lines and will do the expansion, is named as a real party in interest. The Sierra Club challenged the Port's authority to declare the rail expansion exempt from CEQA requirements, arguing that the significant increase in coal dust will cause health impacts to the largely low-income community. The Port anticipates it will handle 2 million tons of coal this year. Coal rail freight to the Port has increased dramatically in recent years - up from 30,000 tons in 2011 - as demand from Mexico and China has grown, while Pacific Northwest ports have begun to reject coal, and domestic demand stagnates.
SFGate - Jun 30
Despite California’s many efforts to fight global warming, the state’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in 2012, as a nuclear power plant shut down and the drought hit hydroelectric dams hard. But the increase, it turns out, was short-lived. Data released by the state on Tuesday show that California’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases started falling again in 2013. The drop was nominal, just 0.3 percent. The state’s economy still pumped almost 460 million metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to the California Air Resources Board, but considering the circumstances, state officials still consider that a success. Board chairwoman, Mary Nichols, remarked that “This inventory provides convincing evidence that California can grow its economy and continue to fight climate change."
The Guardian - Jun 28
Just over a month after California experienced its worst oil spill in decades, the state is considering allowing a company to triple its oil production off the coast of Santa Barbara and run the oil through the same pipeline that leaked on May 19. Local regulators heard a proposal from Venoco to expand its offshore oil operations near Santa Barbara. Opponents say that expansion would create three times the volume of oil, which would have to be transported through the same Plains All American Pipeline that spilled over 100,000 gallons of oil onto Refugio Beach and its surrounding waters last month. Because California has a law prohibiting new offshore drilling leases, the Venoco deal would involve a rare lease swap in which the company would give back to the state some of the land it currently uses in exchange for the ability to tap into pre-existing but inactive oil wells in another section of ocean. Both sections of ocean are part of the California Coastal Sanctuary.
