This post was co-authored by Beth Ginsberg & Krista McIntyre.

The U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) recently issued a memorandum stating that settlements, including consent decrees, entered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies can no longer include a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), unless the SEP is expressly authorized by Congress. Companies and individuals accused of violating environmental laws and permits, like Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act permits, commonly agree to perform SEPs to fund projects that go beyond compliance instead of paying a higher cash penalty to the U.S. Treasury. Going forward, companies, individuals, and local governments will no longer have SEPs as a settlement option.

To support this policy reversal after more than 30 years, U.S. DOJ cites to the Miscellaneous Receipts Act, which grants only Congress the authority to decide how to appropriate federal funds. The U.S. DOJ views SEPs as federal funds, and, in U.S. DOJ’s opinion, the EPA and other federal agencies lack the authority to divert those funds to third party recipients and to select the projects that should receive the funds. The power of the purse rests squarely with Congress. “[W]ith SEPs, money otherwise destined for the Treasury finds its way to another destination, not at the insistence of Congress, where the Constitution puts that authority, but instead at the insistence of an administrative agency, or a non-federal entity, or some combination thereof.”
Continue Reading Reversing 30-Year Policy, U.S. DOJ Says Settlements Can No Longer Include Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)

On May 22, 2018, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response (“OSPR”), issued a 15-Day Notice of Modifications to Text of Proposed Regulations and Addition of Documents Relied Upon (“Notice”).  The Notice extends the comment period for the following proposed rulemakings, in response to comments received during the initial 45-day comment period:

  • General Definitions & Abbreviations (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 790);
  • Certificates of Financial Responsibility (§§ 791 – 798)
  • Oil Spill Contingency Plans for Inland Facilities (§ 817.04)
  • Ratings for Oil Spill Response Organizations (§§819 – 819.07)
  • Drills and Exercises for Inland Facilities (§ 820.02)

Continue Reading OSPR Extends Rulemaking Comment Period for Inland Facilities

Our latest post provides updates on environmental and legal developments in Los Angeles and adjacent counties, as well as the Southern San Joaquin Valley.  We welcome your comments and contributions.

Legislation and Ordinances  

Implementation of AB 617, CARB’s Community Air Protection Program. AB 617 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) by October 1, 2018 to identify the highest priority communities affected by a high cumulative air emissions exposure burden (“impacted communities”); to establish the criteria for air monitoring and local emissions reduction programs; and to develop a statewide strategy for reducing emissions, to be updated every 5 years.  Additional timeline for required actions:Continue Reading SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE – NEW AIR QUALITY AND OIL & GAS REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

On February 12, 2018, the California Department of Conservation (“DOC”) issued a public notice announcing revisions to the text of the proposed regulations in the rulemaking for California Underground Gas Storage Projects.  This rulemaking follows a saga of rulemakings for underground gas storage projects in the state – both emergency and general rulemakings – which all began in early 2016.  The rulemakings were spurred by the underground gas storage leak at the Aliso Canyon facility in southern California, which was discovered on October 23, 2015 and continued leaking until February 2016.
Continue Reading California Issues Revised Proposed Underground Gas Storage Regulations

In early January 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) decided to halt previous proposals to stay methane rules for new and existing landfills.  The Obama Administration’s EPA issued the final New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and Emissions Guidelines (“EG”) for municipal solid waste landfills on August 29, 2016 (jointly “Methane Rules”).  These updates to the NSPS were promulgated to reduce emissions of methane-rich landfill gas from new, modified and reconstructed municipal solid waste (“MSW”) landfills.  EPA’s current announcement to desert plans for an administrative stay comes after the EPA announced a 90-day administrative stay for the Methane Rules, which went into effect on May 31, 2017.
Continue Reading Trump EPA Will Not Stay Landfill Methane Rules

The California Office of Spill Prevention and Response (“OSPR”), within the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has been tasked with new responsibilities related to oil spill response.  Assembly Bill 1197 (“AB 1197”), which was signed into law in October 2017 and goes into effect on January 1, 2018, authorizes spill management teams (“SMTs”) to apply to the OSPR Administrator (“Administrator”) for a certification of that SMT’s response capabilities.  AB 1197 also authorizes the Administrator to charge a reasonable administrative fee to process an application for, or renewal of, a certification.  In addition, OSPR must promulgate regulations outlining the certification process for SMTs.
Continue Reading Ready or Not? Now’s the Time to Get Your Oil Spill Management Team OSPR Certification

On September 22, 2017, the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for its Pipeline Testing Regulations.  The Notice announces that DOGGR proposes to adopt regulations for pipeline testing and safety, as required under Assembly Bill 1420.

Assembly Bill 1420 (“AB 1420”) went into effect on January 1, 2016, and requires DOGGR to review, evaluate, and update, where appropriate, its existing regulations regarding all active gas pipelines that are 4 inches or less in diameter, are located in sensitive areas, and are 10 years or older.  As a result of AB 1420, DOGGR conducted intensive review of the existing pipeline regulations and studied the economic impact and the impact on small businesses, among other potential effects of the proposed regulations.  As part of these studies, DOGGR “made an initial determination that the adoption of these regulations may have a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.”  Pipeline Testing Regulations: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Action, at 7.Continue Reading DOGGR Releases Proposed Pipeline Testing Regulations

Update: September 26, 2016

On September 21, 2016, the Honorable George C. Hernandez, Jr. issued the final Statement of Decision, which affirmed the tentative decision denying all claims for relief.  The court denied CBD’s petition for writ of mandate.

Original Post: August 22, 2016

As reported in a previous blog post, Earthjustice, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”), filed a lawsuit against the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) in May 2015.  The lawsuit attacked DOGGR’s emergency rulemaking for aquifer exemption compliance.  Not surprisingly, like all of CBD’s spurious lawsuits attacking DOGGR for implementing its regulatory duties, on August 2, 2016, an Alameda County Superior Court judge issued a tentative ruling denying CBD’s petition for writ of mandate. This is another setback for CBD’s litigation strategy of impeding DOGGR in order to cripple the oil and gas industry.

DOGGR issued the emergency rules in response to a letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that addressed California’s compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) and the Class II Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program.  Following DOGGR’s issuance of the emergency rules, the EPA stated “[t]he State’s emergency regulations to codify deadlines for injection well operators to cease injection, absent EPA-approved aquifer exemptions, is a critical step in the State’s plan to return the California Class II UIC program to compliance with the SDWA.”  In other words, California regulators were doing what they were supposed to do under the law.Continue Reading Court’s Tentative Decision Sides in Favor of DOGGR in CBD’s Wastewater Injection Lawsuit

On Thursday, April 2, the California Department of Conservation (“DOC”) published a notice of proposed emergency rulemaking for the state’s Class II Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) program.  The purpose of the rulemaking is set a schedule to eliminate injection into non-exempt aquifers so as to ensure that California oil and gas activities are in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).  The SDWA prohibits injection of Class II wells — those that dispose of waste water from oil and gas production — into non-exempt aquifers.  The Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”), within the DOC, first proposed this rulemaking in a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in February 2015.  In March, twelve wells were shut-in in order to achieve this goal.
Continue Reading California Proposes Emergency Rules for Oil & Gas Waste Water Injection Wells as Precautionary Measure

On Friday, February 6, California’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (“DOGGR”) published a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) addressing issues with California’s Class II Oil and Gas Underground Injection Control program (“UIC”).  DOGGR wrote the letter in response to two previous letters from the USEPA where the USEPA pointed out