EENR
1 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
A Fast Briefing from the Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Center at the UH Law Center
Volume 1 Number 5
Texas has emerged as the leading battleground over federal
and state leadership on national environmental and energy
policy. The disputes now include air permitting, greenhouse
gas emission controls, alternative natural gas production from
shale formations, and Clean Water Act permits. This
EENRCenter Brief reports on:
EPA has flatly stated that major sources in all states –
including Texas – became subject to permit
requirements for greenhouse gas emissions on January
2, 2010. Texas, of course, has bluntly refused to issue
those permits. This EENRCenter Brief updates some of
the consequences of proposed legislation to curb EPA’s
regulatory authority over greenhouse gases that might
affect Texas.
The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Severance caused an uproar over rights over coastal
properties. We provide an assessment of the opinion
and its likely ramifications.
January 2011
Sponsors
The EENR Center would like to
recognize and thank our current
sponsors:
Grand Underwriters
Connelly Baker & Wotring LLP
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
Benefactors
Porter & Hedges LLP
Sponsors
Blackburn Carter, P.C.
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
El Paso Corporation
Carl Edlund, the director of multimedia planning and
permitting for EPA Region 6, has given a preview of
EPA’s plans for issuing permits for greenhouse gases in
Texas. We’ve included a brief summary of his remarks.
Environmental & Natural Resources Law
Section of the State Bar of Texas
EENR Center Faculty
EPA’s Climate Change Regulations: the Legislative
Monkey’s Paw
Texas has pugnaciously taken center stage in the fight against
EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the
federal Clean Air Act. On January 2, 2011, EPA partially
revoked its delegation of air permitting authority to Texas for
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source
Review programs. This revocation extended only to permits
for greenhouse gas emissions, and Texas will keep its
authority to permit major sources of emissions of other
pollutants. EPA in the meantime will issue permits itself to
major greenhouse gas sources in Texas in 2011. Texas
vigorously responded to EPA’s decision with multiple lawsuits
and petitions to challenge EPA’s authority under the existing
federal Clean Air Act to limit greenhouse gas emissions, and
even succeeded (if only temporarily) in persuading the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals to enjoin EPA’s withdrawal of Texas’
air program delegation.
Stephen V. Arbogast
Robert S. Ballentine
Harless Benthul
Theodore Borrego
Marcilynn A. Burke
Darren Bush
William Cason
Gavin Clarkson
As the Texas brawl spills into the courts, EPA’s actions have
also sparked threats of legislative reaction in Washington. In
particular, several Senators will likely propose legislation that
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
2 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
would suspend or revoke EPA’s authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Sen. Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) proffered
leading vehicles to halt EPA’s regulatory campaign during last
year’s Congressional session. While Sen. Rockefeller called off
efforts to curb EPA’s climate change program at the end of the
111th Congress, he pointedly noted that the prospects for
passing his bill would improve substantially when the 112th
Congress – and its expanded conservative Republican
contingents in both the House and Senate – convened in
2011.
The bills to suspend EPA’s authority will probably take
different approaches. Some bills – for example, H.R. 6561
introduced by Representative Ted Poe 9R-TX) in last session
-- flatly declare that EPA cannot use any funds to implement a
cap-and-trade system under the existing Clean Air Act. Other
bills have simply stated that the Clean Air Act does not give
EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases absent
further legislative direction from Congress. Some bills would
suspend EPA’s authority for two years so that the federal
courts would have time to complete the review of numerous
litigation challenges to EPA’s programs, while other bills would
permanently bar EPA’s program outright. Rep. Fred Upton
(R-MI) has already announced that he will convene hearings
of the House Energy & Commerce Committee to oversee EPA’s
program, and he will support legislative to remove outright
EPA’s authority under the current Clean Air Act.
Frank Devlin
Sashe D. Dimitroff
Tracy Hester
Charles Irvine
Henry May
Susan Strawn
Jacqueline Lang Weaver
Click here to print the full
EENR Center Brief
Opponents of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulatory program,
however, should be careful exactly what they wish for. Like
the owner of the proverbial Monkey’s Paw, they may find
themselves saddled with a situation little better – or even
worse – than the one they faced under EPA’s initiative unless
the legislation is carefully considered and meticulously
crafted.
While EPA’s regulatory push under the Clean Air Act has
sparked fierce opposition, it has also diverted attention and
energy from other greenhouse gas liability issues that might
flare into renewed life if EPA loses its ability to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions. These corollary conflicts could
include:
Public Nuisance Tort Litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court
has agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision in
Connecticut v. American Electric Power. As we’ve
reported previously, the Second Circuit panel’s decision
allowed six state attorneys general to proceed with their
claims that greenhouse gas emissions from several
large power plants had contributed to climate change
effects which had damaged their states. The district
court dismissed the claims because they posed a
political question outside the federal judiciary’s
jurisdiction. One of the defendants’ strongest arguments
was that EPA’s regulatory initiative had displaced or
preempted the federal common law underlying such
public nuisance claims. In fact, the U.S. Solicitor
General had urged the Court to grant review of the
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
3 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
defendant’s certiorari petition solely so that the Court
could vacate and remand the decision back to the
Second Circuit for further consideration in light of EPA’s
new rules. If Congress removes EPA’s ability to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions, defendants may find
themselves deprived of one of their strongest
arguments against large-scale tort actions for climate
change damages.
Greenhouse Gas Regulation Under Other Federal
Statutes. As EPA has focused its climate change
regulatory energies on the Clean Air Act, the federal
government has downplayed its authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under other federal statutes.
For example, when it designated the polar bear as a
threatened species, the U.S. Department of Interior
expressly declined under the Endangered Species Act to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions that might affect
endangered or threatened species and their critical
habitat based on generalized climate impacts in remote
locations. Other federal agencies have moved
tentatively to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under
the Clean Water Act (e.g., EPA’s response to petitions to
control emissions that might contribute to ocean
acidification), the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuary Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and various federal
statutes and regulations governing use of federal lands.
All of these federal statutes may enjoy renewed
attention as ways to regulate greenhouse gases if
Congress forecloses further activity under the Clean Air
Act.
State Laws and Regulations. Not all of the proposed EPA
moratoria bills would preclude regulatory initiatives
under state laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Notably, a vast majority of states responded to EPA’s
call to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by confirming
that they had the ability under their existing laws to
control greenhouse gas emissions. Some states have
already aggressively moved to regulate these emissions
under their state laws, and they would retain the ability
to move forward with greenhouse gas permitting efforts
even if EPA lost its ability to compel them to do so
within the Clean Air Act’s federal oversight framework.
Notably, state legal actions might also include state law
public nuisance tort actions for climate change
damages.
Of course, none of these collateral consequences are
unavoidable or insurmountable. Congress can directly address
each of these concerns and craft an express and clear path to
resolve them. Indeed, some bills – such as legislation
proposed by now-retired Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), and
a bill that Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) will likely introduce this
session – comprehensively bar any regulation of greenhouse
gases under multiple federal environmental statutes and also
preempt state tort lawsuits.
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
4 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
Congress has previously included overt and detailed language
in federal environmental statutes to delineate the scope of
their preemption of ongoing lawsuits or state regulatory
initiatives. Absent similar direction, opponents of climate
change regulation may find themselves trading one large fight
against a regulatory Gulliver for a host of smaller battles on
numerous fields against tort plaintiffs and state agency
Lilliputians. The smaller fights, ironically, may be harder to
win convincingly on every front.
Washing Away Beach Access in Texas
On November 5, the Texas Supreme Court addressed the
issue of public beachfront access in a divided set of opinions in
Severance v. Patterson, Case No. 09-0387, 2010 WL
4371438. The case involved a California resident and
Galveston landowner, Carol Severance, who owned coastal
property on Galveston’s West Beach with rental houses
located near the vegetation line on the beach. When
Severance bought the property at issue in this case, the land
sale contract disclosed that the vegetation line “customarily
marks the landward boundary of the public [beach] easement”
and that any structures “that become seaward of the
vegetation line as a result of natural processes are subject to
a lawsuit by the state of Texas to remove the structures.”
After Hurricane Rita, state officials conducted a survey of the
vegetation line and determined that the rental house on the
property at issue was seaward of the vegetation line. State
officials then contacted Severance to inform her that portions
of her property were now located on a public beachfront
easement, that her house interfered with the public’s use of
the dry beach, and that they could file enforcement actions
seeking removal of the house under the Texas Open Beaches
Act. The officials also offered her $40,000 to off-set the costs
of moving the rental house to a new location.
Severance filed suit in federal district court, contending that
the potential enforcement of the migratory easement on her
property constituted a seizure violating the Fourth
Amendment and a taking without just compensation violating
the Fifth Amendment. The district court dismissed, holding
that Severance failed to state a claim for relief because Texas
law recognizes a “rolling” beachfront easement predating her
purchase of the property, which the state may enforce as
natural changes occur in its location, and that no
constitutional violation results from uncompensated changes
in the easements location due to these natural changes. On
appeal, a divided Fifth Circuit panel held that although
Severance’s takings claim was premature, her Fourth
Amendment seizure claim was ripe, and therefore the panel
certified several questions to the Supreme Court of Texas for
review.
In time, the Fifth Circuit panel’s decision to recognize both
the potential applicability of the Fourth Amendment to these
facts and the ripeness of such a Fourth Amendment claim may
prove to be the most significant aspect of this litigation: as
the Fifth Circuit dissent pointed out, such a holding may
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
5 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
essentially invert conventional understandings of takings
claims under the Fifth Amendment. At present, however, most
attention has focused on the Texas Supreme Court’s recent
resolution of the first question certified by the divided Fifth
Circuit panel, namely: “Does Texas recognize a ‘rolling’ public
beachfront access easement … [which] migrates solely
according to naturally caused changes in the location of the
vegetation line, without proof of prescription, dedication or
customary rights …?” This, of course, is a critically important
question in its own right, not least because several Texas
appellate court opinions had seemed to clearly countenance
the possibility of such “rolling” easements on similar facts.
Moreover, given the extremely high coastal erosion rates in
Texas, this issue has substantial potential significance in other
situations as well: for example, as Severance’s counsel
pointed out in a brief before the Texas Supreme Court,
although recent litigation on this issue has focused on homes
and vacation properties that are ostensibly subject to
removal, in the future such cases may involve coastal
businesses and industry, including petrochemical plants.
In a 6-2 decision on the certified questions sent by the Fifth
Circuit, a majority of the Texas Supreme Court held that
“Texas does not recognize a ‘rolling’ easement” on these facts,
at least not one capable of migrating on to previously
unencumbered property after dramatic natural changes.
Although the majority noted that it is “impractical to apply
static real property boundary concepts to property lines” that
move with the edge of the ocean, such as the tide and sand
lines, and although the majority also noted that the
vegetation line, like the tide and sand lines, is also
“constantly affected by the tide, wind, and other weather and
natural occurrences,” it saw no contradiction in applying
relatively static boundaries to the scope of public easements
previously based on the vegetation line in the face of sudden
natural changes. The dissent suggested that the application of
such relatively fixed easement boundaries, in the face of
predictable future erosion to Texas’s coastline, threatens to
increase beachfront litigation while potentially compromising
public beach access.
What is the significance of Severance? The majority opinion of
the Texas Supreme Court was decried by public interest
groups interested in public beach access and hailed by private
property rights activists, but the most significant impact of
this litigation may arise from the Fifth Circuit’s potential
elaboration of property owners’ Fourth Amendment rights.
Most immediately, by its own acknowledgment, the opinion of
the Texas Supreme Court in Severance specifically
disapproves of and at least partially overrules the contrary
results reached by several lower Texas courts, which have
repeatedly recognized public use easements that “roll” with
movements of the vegetation line. But it is unclear, at
present, exactly what the full practical significance of this
shift will be, for although the majority opinion refused to
recognize a “rolling” public use easement created when
“avulsive events such as storms and hurricanes … drastically
alter pre-existing boundaries,” it did recognize that
easements for public use on private dry beach property may
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
6 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
shift in response to gradual changes to the shore and
vegetation line. Future litigation in this area seems probable,
and one of the main issues to be determined likely will be
exactly how drastic or dynamic the permissible shifts in such
easements can be without rising to the level of impermissible
“rolling,” an issue potentially complicated by the fact that
Texas’s coastline erosion rate is among the highest in the
nation.
Dual Permitting Ahead – Comments by EPA Region 6
Multimedia Permit Director Carl Edlund on EPA
Greenhouse Gas Permitting in Texas
Carl Edlund, the Director of Multimedia Planning and
Permitting for EPA Region 6, provided an overview of
greenhouse gas permitting issues at the Hot Air Topics
Conference on January 13, 2011. The Air Waste &
Management Association sponsored this conference in
Houston, and it offered one of the first opportunities for EPA
to describe how it will issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas
under a federal implementation plan.
Background. Edlund began by reviewing the key events that
led EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He noted that
EPA General Counsel Jon Cannon issued an opinion in 1998
that EPA could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air
Act if it chose. Edlund then recounted the petitions and
lawsuits that led to the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement
in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 that greenhouse gases
constituted a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and how that
ruling prompted EPA to issue the Johnson memorandum in
2008 to declare when greenhouse gases became subject to
regulation under the Clean Air Act. In 2009, EPA made its
finding that greenhouse gases constituted an endangerment
to human health and the environment. That finding caused
EPA to reconsider its Johnson memorandum in 2010, and in
its reconsideration EPA concluded that the endangerment
finding and pending automotive greenhouse gas regulations
would trigger a requirement for major stationary sources to
obtain permits for greenhouse gases under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration program starting on January 2,
2011.
Edlund then noted that EPA has now issued a cascade of
greenhouse gas regulations. These rules include a national
greenhouse gas reporting rule, a rule limiting emissions from
light-duty vehicles, a joint rule with the National Highway
Traffic Administration to raise automobile efficiency
standards, a rule to “tailor” permit requirements for
greenhouse gas emissions under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V air permit programs (the
“Tailoring Rule”), and numerous rules in December 2010 to
implement greenhouse gas permit requirements in all states
(including states which lacked authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emission immediately under their state laws).
He then discussed briefly the need for the Tailoring Rule. As
Edlund noted previously, this rule adjusted the emission
thresholds that would trigger requirements for sources to
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
7 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
permit greenhouse gas emissions under the PSD and Title V
operating thresholds. The Clean Air Act imposes statutory
thresholds of 100 tons and 250 tons per year for most
sources. Since even small sources of carbon dioxide (including
office buildings and small electrical generation units) could
exceed these thresholds, EPA concluded that this approach
would produce “absurd results.” The Tailoring Rule adjusts
those permitting thresholds significantly upward.
Edlund listed the various rules that EPA issued in December
2010 to implement greenhouse gas permitting:
Final Greenhouse Gas (GHG) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) call (12/1/2010, 75 FR
77698)
Finding of failure to submit GHG SIP for seven
states (12/23/2010, 75 FR 81874)
Final GHG FIP for seven states (same for all
others, 75 FR 82246)
Final PSD SIP Narrowing Rule for GHGs (75 FR
82536)
Final title V narrowing rule for GHGs (75 FR
82254)
Texas error correction, partial
approval/disapproval of PSD program - interim
final (75 FR 82430)
Texas error correction, partial
approval/disapproval – proposal (75 FR 82365)
So, Edlund asked, “what’s left?” He observed that 13 states
were stuck with needing to revise their requirements to
match tailoring rule levels. Because of this lag in state
authority, EPA had granted only narrow approval of their
state implementation plans for greenhouse gas emission
controls. The PSD narrowing rule applies to 24 states, while
the Title V narrowing rule affects 23 states.
EPA and Texas Permitting Authority. Edlund then turned to
EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases in Texas. He began by
acknowledging that “gosh, we know that Texas believes that
they don’t have the authority to regulate GHGs, and it
believes that EPA doesn’t either.” That argument, he added, is
proceeding in the courts. This disagreement could lead to a
one-year delay in greenhouse gas regulation in Texas until a
federal implementation plan would take effect, and Edlund
said that this gap wouldn’t necessarily pose a problem – but
the lack of any ability to obtain PSD authorization for new
construction in Texas would tie up industry. To solve that
problem, EPA issued an error correction and partial
disapproval of Texas’ state implementation plan on December
30, 2010. According to Edlund, EPA concluded in the notice
that when EPA originally gave Texas approval for its PSD
program, EPA assumed that Texas would be able to take up
permitting for new pollutants such as greenhouse gases.
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
8 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
Because Texas now says it cannot do so, EPA disapproved the
Texas PSD program for greenhouse emissions alone and then
laid the groundwork for issuing a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) that would allow EPA to grant permits directly in Texas
for greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has promulgated an
interim emergency final rule that establishes its permitting
authority immediately, and EPA has also proposed a rule for
public comment that would establish a permanent final rule to
authorize the FIP. Edlund noted that EPA would hold a public
hearing on the proposed rule in Dallas on January 14, and he
expected that EPA “would get a lot of comments.”
EPA’s actions, according to Edlund, should avoid a permitting
authority gap while EPA and Texas worked out who would do
what. Texas responded on December 30, 2010 with a motion
for a stay of the Texas interim final error correction. Edlund
announced that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on
January 12 to lift the stay, and EPA now believes that
sufficient regulations are in place for EPA to become the
permitting authority for greenhouse gas emissions in Texas.
Edlund noted, however, that other court proceedings remain
in play, including an action before the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals (which denied Texas’ separate motion for a stay on
December 29) and continuing litigation in the D.C Circuit.
Greenhouse Gas Permitting in Texas. Edlund then discussed
how EPA will issue greenhouse gas permits in Texas. He noted
that EPA would like to talk with companies with pending PSD
permits. According to Edlund, EPA will need to issue perhaps
15 to 25 permits within the next six to nine months (largely
for electrical generation units). EPA is contacting the
companies that it knows about, but the onus remains on the
sources themselves to determine whether they’ll trigger the
new greenhouse gas permit requirements. EPA will work with
those companies and, “as well as we can,” with Texas to
coordinate a greenhouse gas permit. Sources that need those
permits will have to apply to EPA until “we get back to a more
normal situation.” Edlund emphasized that EPA did not wish
to take over air permitting in general (that authority remains
with Texas), but EPA had to take targeted action to avoid a
gap in permitting authority.
Edlund then announced that EPA is “open for business.” EPA
has set up a website with guidance on how to obtain
greenhouse gas permits, although the site doesn’t have a
permit form (it only provides a guideline). The site, according
to Edlund, contains a great deal more information as well.
While many commenters have raised concerns that EPA’s plan
to directly permit greenhouse gas emissions in Texas will be
“an impossible task,” Edlund felt that this approach would be
less chaotic than in the late 1970s when Texas and EPA
shared joint PSD permitting.
Edlund said that EPA already has a number of permits under
technical review which will apply EPA’s new guidelines for
identifying the Best Available Control Technology for
greenhouse gas emissions. As Edlund noted, “we have
rational hope here.” He pointed to the example of a pig iron
plan in Louisiana that is seeking PSD authorization for a
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
9 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
modification. EPA has already received numerous comments
on the permit application, and EPA has not yet issued the
permit (although it might be issued in the near future). As
part of this process, the plant has identified a direct reduction
ingot process that allows it to set a greenhouse gas limit in its
permit which translates into an efficiency standard of 15 tons
per year of greenhouse gas for every ton of iron produced.
According to Edlund, the selection of a technology with such a
low carbon footprint compared to traditional iron making
validates EPA’s permit approach, and it will help make this
process profitable for the company.
Last, Edlund observed that traditional criteria pollutants are
very interconnected with greenhouse gas emissions and
technology choices. As a result, EPA will “need to be aware” of
these impacts when it prepares greenhouse gas permits, and
EPA will need to work with companies and TCEQ while it does
that.
Edlund concluded by commenting on other active air permit
issues beyond greenhouse gases. He began with flexible
permits. According to Edlund, slightly more than threequarters of flexible permit holders are on track to deflex their
permits or already are deflexed. The remaining flexible permit
holders, however, need some follow-up from EPA. In
September 2010, EPA issued a request to all flexible permit
holders to meet EPA and agree to a four-step process to
deflex their permits. This process would require the permit
holders to publicly agree to reform their permits, perform an
analysis of emissions from their units, impose new controls in
a new source permit, and then embody those limits in their
Title V permits. This process should take a year or less. EPA
has received responses from nearly all of the permit holders,
and 80 percent of them have started to reform their permits
through the four-step process. While the remaining 20
percent of permit holders are also probably reforming their
permits, their commitments to EPA contain language that
requires clarification. There are a handful of facilities that did
not want to participate in this process, and EPA will need to
deal with them individually. Edlund believed that this outcome
told “a good story,” and it will help with the transparency of
Texas permits.
Edlund finished by noting that EPA had announced new
directions on greenhouse gas permitting for biomass facilities.
According to a press release issued on January 12, EPA will
provide a three-year deferral from greenhouse PSD
permitting for biomass so that it can further examine the
scientific and technical issues associated with counting GHG
emissions from biomass facilities (for example, EPA will need
to discount emissions to some degree based on varying levels
of fossil fuels used to produce the biomass). EPA received
7,000 comments on the initial proposal (including some “very
strong comments”). Edlund noted that EPA had committed
that by July 2010 it will issue a deferral for biomass sources,
begin a study, and within three years determine how it will
best permit these sources. EPA will also issue guidance by
July 2010 as well that will outline operating permit
requirements for biomass facilities. In the interim, Edlund said
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
10 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
that his sense is that “it may well be that burning biomass is
good enough for now” until EPA can figure out that complex
formula.
Edlund then took questions from the audience. The first
questioner asked whether a facility will now require a joint
permit issued by EPA and Texas, or whether it will need two
separate permits. Edlund replied that facilities will need two
separate permits, and EPA will try to issue them at the same
time. A number of sources may have a GHG issue that they
haven’t discussed with EPA, and as a result Edlund couldn’t
say that EPA would have an instant response for them. A
number of sources will likely require dual permits soon (most
of them are electrical generating units), and EPA will do it as
promptly as it can.
The second questioner asked whether EPA will require
separate public notices for the two permits. Edlund answered
that some of these permits may have already received public
comment, and EPA could perhaps combine them with the new
comments. He acknowledged that it would be “very sane” to
get the same timetable and synchronize comments between
the federal and state permits.
Last, a questioner asked what type of commitment EPA could
provide on a timetable to process and issue greenhouse gas
permits. Edlund simply replied that EPA would issue them “as
quickly as we can.” He pointed out that EPA has competent
staff, and it will also draw on some contractual resources. EPA
Region 6 will also receive support from other EPA regional
offices and from EPA’s national Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, so Edlund felt comfortable that EPA would be
able to staff the project in a responsible way. He did not,
however, have a time limit for processing permits. Edlund
believed that EPA could develop a timeline, but he pointed out
that greenhouse gas permitting would be especially complex
because of its interrelationship with emissions of other criteria
air pollutants. Edlund concluded by simply saying “we’re
committed to do as well as we can on that.”
EENR Events
EENR Lecture by John Cruden. We are pleased
to announce that John Cruden, the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for the
Environment & Natural Resources Division of
the U.S. Department of Justice, has tentatively
agreed to give the EENR Lecture for Spring
2011. Mr. Cruden is a well-known national
figure in environmental law. As Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, he is responsible for supervising a
wide variety of environmental litigation, including civil
enforcement actions in federal court for the key
environmental statutes, including Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act, RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA/Superfund.
In addition, he supervises wetland enforcement, challenges to
EPA rule making, and environmental actions filed against the
United States. Prior to becoming a career Deputy, John was
Chief of DOJ’s Environmental Enforcement Section (EES).
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
11 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
John has also served as Chair of the American Bar
Association’s Section on Environment, Energy & Resources
and as Chair of the District of Columbia Bar Association. We
are honored and excited to have him join us.
Symposium on Counting on
Catastrophe: How Environmental and
Energy Laws Account for Catastrophic
Risks. On February 18, 2011, the
Environmental & Energy Law & Policy
Journal will host its seventh annual
symposium at the JPMorgan Chase
Tower in downtown Houston. This
year’s topic – a review of how
environmental and energy laws
respond to catastrophes, including the
Macondo well blowout -- is both timely
and vitally important to the Texas
legal world.
The symposium keynote speaker is Jim Noe, the general
counsel for Hercules Energy and executive director of the
Offshore Energy Producers Task Force. Please join us for an
exciting and informative session. You can find more on the
Symposium agenda and registration information at
www.law.uh.edu/eelpj/symposium2011/registration.pdf.
PLI Energy & Environmental Institute. On February 4 and 5,
the University of Houston Law Center will co-sponsor the
Practising Law Institute’s first Annual Energy & Environment
Institute in Houston. The program features top-notch
speakers, including FERC Commissioner Marc Spitzer, John
Hofmeister, former CEO of Shell and founder of Citizens for
Affordable Energy, and Adam Kushner, the director of EPA’s
Office of Civil Enforcement. Bracewell & Giuliani, LLP has
graciously provided its conference center at Pennzoil Place in
downtown Houston for the institute. Privileged members of
PLI can attend the conference for free. Please join us for an
event that will hopefully turn into a Houston legal tradition.
You can find more information at www.pli.edu.
*****
As always, your input and suggestions are critical to us. We
invite your thoughts and participation, and will continue to
reach out to our current (and future!) supporters and
sponsors.
Please feel free to call or email me if you have any questions
or need further information. We look forward to talking with
you again soon.
Tracy Hester
Director, Environment, Energy & Natural Resources Center
University of Houston Law Center
100 Law Center, BLB Rm. 142
Houston, Texas
77204
(713) 743-1152
8/12/2011 8:02 AM
EENR
12 of 12
file:///C:/Documents and Settings/tdheste2/Local Settings/Temporary Inter...
tdheste2@central.uh.edu
To stop receiving these email messages, please click unsubscribe.
The University of Houston Law Center 100 Law Center Houston, TX 77204-6060 713.743.2201
8/12/2011 8:02 AM