Going Green
Articles related to environmental stewardship issues facing the construction industry. To preserve environmental quality for future generations, many contractors are voluntarily doing much more than what they are legally required to do.
An Act To move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, and effectively instructed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gas” exhaust emissions from new motor vehicles.
On February 8, 2008, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that EPA violated Section 112 of the Clean Air Act when it removed electricity generation power plants from the list of sources of airborne mercury pollution, then attempted to control mercury pollution from those same power plants by a voluntary cap and trade program.
In issuing Phase II regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for power plant cooling water intakes, U.S. EPA found that it would cost too much to require recirculation systems or extensive fish protection. The Second Circuit’s recent Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA decision may change that for 540 power plants.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law. Otherwise known as the Stimulus Plan, this new law will inject $787 billion of federal funding into the economy over the next decade, including almost $20 billion for a variety of renewable energy tax credits and $34 billion in direct spending to improve energy efficiency and conservation, weatherize homes, modernize the electric grid, build energy transmission lines, and make energy efficiency retrofits to commercial buildings.
It was the proverbial shot heard around the world in the escalating war of words regarding coal-fired power plants and climate change: On October 18, 2007, the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denied an air permit to two proposed coal-fired generating units, citing only potential carbon dioxide emissions and concerns about climate change as the reasons. It was the first time a government agency in the United States had relied on carbon dioxide emissions to deny such a permit. This article examines that decision, the ensuing legal and legislative maneuverings, and the next steps.
On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, H.R. 2764. This omnibus spending bill appropriated fiscal year 2008 (October 2007 through September 2008) funds for almost all domestic spending programs, including EPA.
On December 19, 2007, EPA denied California’s 2005 request to impose greenhouse gas emission controls on new motor vehicles. California filed the waiver request based on claimed injuries to the state’s coastlines, snow pack and air quality caused by global climate change.
On that same December 19, 2007, President George Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
In January, 2007 the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a case that should decide, once and for all, the circumstances under which a company that performs environmental cleanup work at a contaminated property has the right to sue other co-responsible parties to make them help pay for that cleanup. This decision should bring more certainty to a critical issue that affects almost every hazardous waste cleanup and industrial property transaction.
Frustrated citizens and environmental interest groups often turn to the citizen’s suit provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for relief. Those attempts may have become easier under the First Circuit’s December 2006 decision in Maine People's Alliance v. Mallinckrodt.
On Monday, June 11 the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., –- S.Ct. –- (2007). The Court’s decision confirms that private parties may sue other persons, including the United States and state governments, to recover costs spent voluntarily (i.e., without the party first being the subject of a cost recovery lawsuit or entering into a settlement with the government), to perform cleanup work at environmentally contaminated properties.
On that same day the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court also issued another important Clean Air Act (CAA) case, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp. The 9-0 opinion holds that the CAA standard for triggering prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)permit requirements is modification of a facility with a potential increase in annual levels of air emissions. Before this ruling, electric power companies and others argued that PSD requirements were only triggered if a modification could increase hourly air emissions. The effect of this change will be to
impose PSD and New Source Review analysis on many more industrial facility expansions, and
potentially subject these modified plants to rigorous emission controls.
Failing to account for wetlands when planning a project can result in long delays and increased expenses. What is more, a violation of wetlands law, even if inadvertent, will subject the violator to civil and criminal penalties, as well as the cost of restoring the impacted wetlands.
Eco-considerations are changing the way commercial leases are written. In a rapidly-changing environment, businesses are becoming more focused on the interplay of energy and environmental issues and how they impact both short-and long-term costs. As with many endeavors, “green” concepts have spilled over into commercial real estate through the development of green buildings and green leases.