Category: Environmental Law

Recent Federal Developments, July 2024

TSCA/FIFRA/TRI

EPA’s Proposed NMP Risk Management Rule Includes Requirements To Protect Workers And Consumers: On June 15, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule under Section 6(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that would protect workers and consumers from exposure to N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP). 89 Fed. Reg. 51134. To address the identified unreasonable risk, EPA proposes to: prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of NMP in several occupational conditions of use (COU); require worker protections through an NMP workplace chemical protection program (WCPP) or prescriptive controls (including concentration limits) for most of the occupational COUs; require concentration limits on a consumer product; regulate certain consumer products to prevent commercial use; and establish recordkeeping, labeling, and downstream notification requirements. Comments are due July 29, 2024. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of the comments on or before July 15, 2024. According to EPA’s June 5, 2024, press release, NMP is used to manufacture and produce many electronics, polymers, agricultural chemicals, and petrochemical products. EPA states that NMP is used in the production of specialized electronics, such as semiconductors and magnet wire, as well as lithium-ion batteries used in a wide variety of applications, including aerospace vehicles and electronic devices. EPA notes that NMP “also has numerous other industrial, commercial and consumer applications, including adhesives and sealants, paints and coatings, paint removers, lubricants, automotive care products, degreasers, cleaning and furniture care products.” For more information, please read the full memorandum.

EPA Announces Final Cancellation Order And Updates To Existing Stocks Provisions For Several Chlorpyrifos Products: On June 25, 2024, EPA announced the issuance of a final cancellation order for Corteva’s chlorpyrifos product “Dursban 50W in Water Soluble Packets” and three Gharda chlorpyrifos products, and an amendment to the existing stocks provisions for two Liberty and three Winfield chlorpyrifos end-use products. EPA also states that it has updated its frequently asked questions about chlorpyrifos. More information is available in our July 2, 2024, blog.

EPA Announces New Initiatives To Improve Efficiency, Worker Protections, And Transparency In New Chemical Reviews: During the June 26, 2024, “TSCA Reform — Eight Years Later” conference, presented by Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, Michal Ilana Freedhoff, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, EPA, provided the keynote address. During her remarks, Freedhoff announced four new initiatives in EPA’s review of new chemicals under TSCA. As later announced by EPA, these initiatives are:

  • Engineering checklist: In May 2024, EPA began implementing an internal engineering checklist to review systematically new chemical submissions and identify potential data gaps at the beginning of the review process.
  • Worker protections: According to EPA, most TSCA Section 5(e) orders are consent orders negotiated between EPA and the notice submitter that use standard “boilerplate” text. In June 2024, EPA updated the boilerplate language to strengthen worker protections and provide further clarity to the text.
  • Updated statistics for new chemical review timelines: On June 26, 2024, EPA began including completed “rework” risk assessments when reporting monthly statistics on new chemical reviews. EPA has updated its Statistics for the New Chemicals Program under TSCA web page to include a category listing all completed rework risk assessments since the beginning of 2024.
  • Reference Library: On June 26, 2024, EPA launched the New Chemicals Division Reference Library, an index of EPA documents related to the work of the New Chemicals Division. It currently contains over 90 entries, and EPA will update it as it develops new materials.

More information is available in our June 26, 2024, blog item. A summary of the conference is available in our July 9, 2024, memorandum.

EPA Postpones Proposed Expansion Of The Safer Choice And DfE Programs: As reported in our July 27, 2023, memorandum, in July 2023, EPA proposed an expansion of the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) programs to include certification of additional product categories. According to EPA’s website, “EPA thanks the many commenters for their input. EPA reviewed the comments and understands several categories are of interest to stakeholders and Safer Choice partners. With the 2024 decrease in EPA’s funding, however, EPA is not able to pursue expansion at this time. EPA plans to reconsider the expansion in the future as resources allow.” On June 28, 2024, a summary of comments received on EPA’s proposed expansion was posted in the online docket. More information is available in our July 5, 2024, blog item.

EPA Releases Draft Risk Evaluation For 1,1-Dichloroethane And Draft Hazard Assessment Of 1,2-Dichloroethane For Public Comment And Peer Review: On July 1, 2024, EPA announced the release of the draft risk evaluation for 1,1-dichloroethane and the draft human health hazard assessment supporting the draft risk evaluation for 1,2-dichloroethane (also known as ethylene dichloride) prepared under TSCA. EPA states that it “preliminarily determined 1,1-dichloroethane poses unreasonable risk to human health (of workers) and the environment.” According to EPA, the effects to people from exposure to 1,1-dichloroethane and 1,2-dichlorethane are “kidney and other cancers, as well as harmful non-cancer renal, nasal, immune system, and reproductive effects.” Publication of a notice of availability in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

Court Vacates TSCA Section 4 Test Order, Grant’s Vinyl Institute’s Petition For Review: On July 5, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in Vinyl Institute, Inc. v. EPA (No. 22-1089). As reported in our May 31, 2022, blog item, on May 23, 2022, the Vinyl Institute, Inc. (VI) filed suit against EPA, seeking review of EPA’s March 2022 test order for 1,1,2-trichloroethane issued under TSCA Section 4(a)(2). The court states that “EPA’s non-public part of the administrative record is not part of ‘the record taken as a whole’ subject to our heightened substantial evidence review of TSCA test orders.” According to the court, to the extent EPA relies on non-public portions of the administrative record, it “has failed to provide substantial evidence that meets its statutory mandate.” The court vacated the test order, remanding to EPA to satisfy that mandate with “substantial evidence in the record taken as a whole.” The court also denied VI’s motion to supplement the record “with scientific information it could have — and should have — submitted earlier.” More information is available in our July 10, 2024, blog item.

EPA Publishes Compliance Guide For Final Methylene Chloride Risk Management Rule: On July 10, 2024, EPA published a compliance guide for its final methylene chloride risk management rule issued under TSCA. According to EPA, the compliance guide will help industry, workers, and other interested stakeholders understand and comply with the new regulations to prevent injuries, long-term illnesses, and deaths. EPA also announced that in June 2024, it released a fact sheet on the rule containing information on who is subject to the rule along with a summary of compliance timelines. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

EPA Grants TSCA Section 21 Petition Seeking Section 6 Rule Prohibiting Three PFAS Found In Fluorinated Plastic Containers: EPA announced on July 11, 2024, that it granted a petition filed a petition under TSCA Section 21 requesting that EPA establish regulations under TSCA Section 6 prohibiting the manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, and disposal of three per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. EPA “will promptly commence an appropriate proceeding under TSCA Section 6.” According to EPA’s announcement, EPA intends to request information, including the number, location, and uses of fluorinated containers in the United States; alternatives to the fluorination process that generates perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA); and measures to address risk from PFOA, PFNA, and PFDA formed during the fluorination of plastic containers. More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

EPA’s Spring 2024 Unified Agenda Includes Proposed And Final TSCA, TRI, And PFAS Rules: EPA’s Spring 2024 Unified Agenda, published on July 5, 2024, includes a number of proposed and final TSCA, Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and PFAS rulemakings. More information on the rulemakings, including links to our memoranda, will be available in an upcoming blog item.

RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA/SDWA

EPA Publishes 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan: EPA announced on June 20, 2024, the release of its 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan, which describes Agency actions to address the impacts of climate change and help build a more climate-resilient nation. Highlights include:

  • Fostering a climate-ready workforce;
  • Building facility resilience;
  • Developing climate-resilient supply chains;
  • Integrating climate resilience into external funding opportunities;
  • Applying climate data and tools to decision making; and
  • Integrating climate adaptation into rulemaking processes.

EPA Amends Standards And Practices For All Appropriate Inquiries: EPA issued a final rule on June 24, 2024, amending the “Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries” to reference a standard practice recently made available by ASTM International, “a widely recognized standards development organization.” 89 Fed. Reg. 52386. EPA states that it is amending the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule to reference ASTM International’s E2247-23 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process for Forestland or Rural Property” and allow for its use to satisfy the requirements for conducting all appropriate inquiries under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, after one year, EPA will remove recognition of the previous version of that standard, ASTM E2247-16, as compliant with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule. The final rule will be effective August 23, 2024.

EPA Proposes To Remove Affirmative Defense Provisions From Specified NSPS And NESHAP: On June 24, 2024, EPA proposed amendments to several New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 89 Fed. Reg. 52425. Specifically, EPA proposes to remove the affirmative defense provisions associated with violation of emission standards due to malfunctions. According to EPA, it proposes to remove these provisions because they are inconsistent with a D.C. Circuit Court decision that vacated affirmative defense provisions in one of EPA’s CAA regulations, and because EPA finds that the reasoning in the decision applies equally to other CAA rules. Since the court decision, EPA has been removing affirmative defense provisions from CAA rules when they were otherwise revised or amended. EPA states that this action “proposes to remove the remaining affirmative defense provisions more efficiently.” Comments are due August 8, 2024.

PHMSA Amends HMR To Require Real-Time Train Consistent Information In Electronic Form: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published a final rule on June 24, 2024, amending the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to require railroads that carry hazardous materials to generate in electronic form, maintain, and provide to first responders, emergency response officials, and law enforcement personnel certain information regarding hazardous materials in rail transportation to enhance emergency response and investigative efforts. 89 Fed. Reg. 52956. According to PHMSA, the amendments address a safety recommendation of the National Transportation Safety Board and statutory mandates in The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, as amended by the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act, and complement existing regulatory requirements pertaining to the generation, maintenance, and provision of similar information in hard copy form, as well as other hazard communication requirements. The effective date of the final rule is July 24, 2024. The voluntary compliance date was June 24, 2024. The delayed compliance date for Class I Railroads is June 24, 2025, and for Class II and III Railroads is June 24, 2026.

EPA Proposes To Extend Compliance Date For Installation Of Certain Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems: On June 26, 2024, EPA proposed to amend a provision of the Technology Transitions regulations promulgated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act. 89 Fed. Reg. 53373. The proposed amendment would allow one additional year, until January 1, 2027, solely for the installation of new residential and light commercial air conditioning and heat pump variable refrigerant flow systems that are 65,000 British thermal units per hour or greater using components manufactured in the United States or imported prior to January 1, 2026. According to EPA, the existing January 1, 2026, compliance date for the installation of certain variable refrigerant flow systems “may result in significant stranded inventory that was intended for new construction. EPA is promulgating this action to mitigate the potential for significant stranded inventory in this subsector.” Comments are due July 26, 2024.

PHMSA Requests Feedback On De Minimis Quantities Of Explosives: PHMSA published a request for information (RFI) on June 28, 2024, to solicit information from hazardous materials (HAZMAT) shippers pertaining to what small quantities or low concentrations of explosives they offer for transport appear to present a low risk to life, property, and the environment. 89 Fed. Reg. 54157. PHMSA seeks to determine what small quantities or low concentrations of explosives HAZMAT shippers offer for transport that appear to present a low risk (e.g., negligible severity, remote probability) to life, property, and the environment. PHMSA will use the information to define the focus of a research project investigating the risk of small and/or de minimis quantities of explosive substances and in selecting test samples for PHMSA research and development Contract# 693JK322C00003. Comments are due September 26, 2024. PHMSA states that it will consider comments received after that date to the extent possible.

EPA Determines Current NESHAP For PQBS Source Category Provides “Ample Margin Of Safety”: On July 5, 2024, EPA published a final rule regarding the residual risk and technology review conducted for the NESHAP for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) source category and the periodic technology review for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category NESHAP. 89 Fed. Reg. 55684. EPA states that it is issuing a final determination that risks due to emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the PQBS source category are acceptable and that “the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.” The final rule was effective July 5, 2024, except for amendatory instruction 3, which was effective July 15, 2024. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register beginning July 5, 2024. The IBR of certain other material listed in the rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 13, 2005.

EPA Releases Science-Based Recommendations To Help Reduce Exposure To Contaminants, Including PFAS, In Fish: EPA announced on July 11, 2024, that it issued updated recommendations under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for contaminants that states, Tribes, and territories should consider monitoring in locally caught, freshwater fish. According to EPA, for the first time, it has added several PFAS to the contaminant list alongside lead, three cyanotoxins, a flame retardant, and amphetamine. With this announcement, EPA suggests that states, Tribes, and territories monitor for these contaminants. EPA notes that this update comes after reviewing scientific literature, analyzing data, and seeking external peer review of the Agency’s analysis, and it will help ensure that state and Tribal fish advisories consider the latest science.

FDA

FDA Updates Resources For FSMA Rule: On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released additional resources to help industry comply with the Food Traceability Rule, a component of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Resources include a template spreadsheet to help fulfill data submission requests and minor revisions to the Food Traceability List. Additional information is available at the link here.

FDA Releases Update For Priority Guidance Topic List: On June 28, 2024, FDA provided an update for its priority guidance topic list, which was released in January. Since January, FDA has issued the following guidance documents:

FDA notes that its “intent is to publish all draft and final guidance topics on the list” but that “modifications in plans may be needed to support emerging issues and Administration priorities.”

FDA Revokes Authorization For Brominated Vegetable Oil: On July 3, 2024, FDA amended its regulations to revoke the authorization for the use of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food. 89 Fed. Reg. 55040. The final rule revokes the authorization for the use of BVO as a food ingredient intended to stabilize flavoring oils in fruit-flavored beverages. FDA notes that there are no other FDA authorized uses. The rule is effective on August 2, 2024.

NANOTECHNOLOGY

ECHA Evaluating Function Of EUON; Survey Closed July 3, 2024: The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is evaluating the function of the European Union (EU) Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON). As part of its evaluation, ECHA conducted a survey to collect responses from EUON website visitors and stakeholders. The survey closed July 3, 2024. More information is available in our June 24, 2024, blog item.

ECHA Updates Report On Key Areas Of Regulatory Challenge, Addresses Micro- And Nano-Sized Materials: On June 12, 2024, ECHA announced that it updated its report on key areas of regulatory challenge, providing more detailed information on areas where scientific research is needed to protect human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals. The report addresses micro- and nano-size materials. More information is available in our June 17, 2024, blog item.

NIOSH Highlights NTRC’s Work On Engineering Controls And PPE: On July 1, 2024, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) posted a NIOSH Science Blog item entitled “Celebrating 20 Years of the Nanotechnology Research Center: Highlights from Engineering Controls and Personal Protective Equipment,” part of a series commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC). NIOSH researchers plan to develop a new reliable aerosol testing method that can accurately evaluate the respirator penetration against workplace nanomaterials; evaluate the effectiveness of NIOSH-approved® respirators to determine whether existing respirator guidelines apply to workers exposed to nanomaterials; and compare nanomaterial penetrations determined by direct-reading and elemental carbon analysis methods. More information is available in our July 5, 2024, blog item.

NNI And NNCO Will Hold July 24 Workshop On “Responsible Development, Social Science, And The National Nanotechnology Initiative”: The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO) are convening a July 24, 2024, workshop, “Responsible Development, Social Science, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative: A Workshop to Explore Past and Future Intersections.” The agenda includes a presentation about the recently released “Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking,” introductions to key nanotechnology case studies by federal experts, and flash talks by social scientists. More information is available in our July 3, 2024, blog item.

BIOBASED/RENEWABLE PRODUCTS/SUSTAINABILITY

B&C® Biobased And Sustainable Chemicals Blog: For access to a summary of key legislative, regulatory, and business developments in biobased chemicals, biofuels, and industrial biotechnology, go to https://www.lawbc.com/brand/bioblog/.

LEGISLATIVE

House Appropriations Committee Approves FY 2025 Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act: The House Appropriations Committee announced on July 9, 2024, that it approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act by a vote of 29 to 25. According to the press release, the bill:

  • Ensures chemical and pesticide manufacturers are not overburdened with requirements that would drive business overseas and threaten American competitiveness;
  • Blocks EPA’s car regulations on light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles;
  • Prohibits EPA from allowing California to require that new small off-road engines, such as lawn care equipment, be zero-emission;
  • Prohibits funds for EPA’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 and regulatory overreach regarding ozone emissions and steam electric power plants;
  • Reduces funding for EPA by 20 percent;
  • Reduces funding for the Council on Environmental Quality to the authorized level of $1 million;
  • Rejects eight of the Administration’s climate change executive orders; and
  • Prohibits agencies from using the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) in cost-benefit analyses and blocks the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

House Committee Holds EPA Oversight Hearing On July 10, 2024: The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability held a full committee hearing on July 10, 2024, on “Oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” The Committee’s July 3, 2024, press release quotes Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) as stating: “We know the Biden Administration is overreaching its environmental protection authorities extensively, flouting the limits the Supreme Court set upon them two years ago in West Virginia v. EPA and adopting statutory interpretations that surely will not pass muster under the Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Committee looks forward to holding the agency accountable next week for its efforts to cement Green New Deal and other misguided priorities that have hurt both American businesses and consumers across the country.” More information will be available in a forthcoming memorandum.

MISCELLANEOUS

California Court Grants Injunction To Stop Prop 65 Warnings For Titanium Dioxide In Cosmetic And Personal Care Products: On June 12, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (District Court) issued an Order granting a preliminary injunction brought by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), which alleged that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) requirement for warnings under Proposition 65 (Prop 65) related to titanium dioxide in cosmetics and personal care products violated the First Amendment. The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta, No. 2:23-cv-01006-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal. 2024). In its Order, the District Court enjoined the California Attorney General and any private citizen enforcers from enforcing Prop 65’s warning requirement for “cancer as applied to Listed Titanium Dioxide (i.e., titanium dioxide that consists of airborne, unbound particles of respirable size) in cosmetic and personal care products.” The District Court also denied a motion to intervene by Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. (EHA), who had argued it was “an interested party because it is the primary enforcer of Prop 65.” For more information, please read the full memorandum.

Proposition 65: OEHHA Proposes Additional Changes To “Short-Form” Warning Option: On June 14, 2024, the California OEHHA issued a notice proposing additional changes to its Prop 65 Article 6 “clear and reasonable warnings” regulations for “short-form” warnings (Notice). The changes proposed now are to the proposed regulations that OEHHA issued on October 27, 2023. The history of these amendments, dating back to January 2021, are set forth in our memorandum available here. Written comments on the proposed changes were due no later than June 28, 2024. More information is available in our July 5, 2024, memorandum.

June 2024 IRIS Program Outlook Released: EPA’s Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) Program announced on June 27, 2024, the release of the June 2024 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program Outlook. To maintain transparency, the IRIS Program provides an updated outlook of program activities. The IRIS Program Outlook describes assessments that are in development and projected public milestone dates.

Registration Opens For July Webinars On Minnesota’s PFAS In Products Law; MPCA Publishes Summary Of Comments On CUUs: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will hold two public webinars in July to provide updates and answer questions on Minnesota’s PFAS in products law (Amara’s Law), which takes effect in stages between 2025 and 2032:

  • Progress on rule development, July 18, 2024, 10:00 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. (CDT): Join MPCA staff for a presentation on preliminary rule writing for the PFAS in products reporting, fees, and currently unavoidable use (CUU) rules. Registration is open.
  • Information on 2025 prohibitions for retailers and manufacturers, July 25, 2024, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. (CDT): This webinar will discuss how the 2025 PFAS in products prohibitions will affect retailers and manufacturers starting January 1, 2025, when 11 categories of consumer products must be free of intentionally added PFAS. Registration is open.

As reported in our January 12, 2024, blog item, MPCA published a request for comments (RFC) on planned new rules governing CUU determinations for products containing PFAS. According to the RFC, the main purpose of the rulemaking is to establish criteria and processes through which MPCA will make decisions on what uses of intentionally added PFAS will qualify as CUUs in products sold, offered for sale, or distributed in Minnesota. Any such determinations must be published by rule by MPCA by January 1, 2032. MPCA has posted a summary of the comments received on the RFC. More information is available in our June 24, 2024, blog item.

Minnesota Department Of Health Highlights Recent Publications On PFAS Bioaccumulation And PFAS In Infant Formula: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recently noted that Health Risk Assessment scientists at MDH have published two articles in the Journal of Environmental Exposure Assessment related to PFAS:

OIRA Will Offer Training Sessions On Effective Participation In The Public Comment Process: As part of its efforts to strengthen public engagement in the federal regulatory process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB announced on July 10, 2024, that it will offer training sessions on effective public participation in the public comment process. 89 Fed. Reg. 56777. In response to feedback received from the public and as part of its ongoing efforts to strengthen public participation in the regulatory process, OIRA will hold two training sessions on effective participation in the public comment process. During the training sessions, OIRA will describe opportunities to provide comment in the federal regulatory process; how to submit public comments; and how to draft effective public comments. The training sessions will be held on July 18, 2024, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. (EDT) and July 24, 2024, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:15 p.m. (EDT).

CISA Hosts 2024 Chemical Security Seminars On July 11 And 18, 2024: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is hosting the fully virtual 2024 Chemical Security Seminars on July 11 and July 18, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (EDT). The sessions will cover a range of topics related to the security of dangerous chemicals. More information is available in our July 8, 2024, blog item.

Comments On Canada’s Updated Draft State Of PFAS Report And Revised Risk Management Scope Are Due September 11, 2024: The July 13, 2024, Canada Gazette includes a notice announcing the availability of the Updated Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report (Updated Draft Report) and Revised Risk Management Scope for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) (Revised Risk Management Scope). The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health (the ministers) propose to recommend that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, be added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). According to the Revised Risk Management Scope, Canada is considering:

  • As a first step, a regulatory instrument under CEPA to restrict PFAS not currently regulated in firefighting foams; and
  • Additional regulatory instrument(s) under CEPA to prohibit other uses or sectors in relation to PFAS. Prioritization for prohibition may be based on factors such as socioeconomic considerations, the availability of feasible alternatives, and the potential for human and environmental exposure.

The Revised Risk Management Scope states that “[v]oluntary risk management actions are also being considered to achieve early results to reduce releases of PFAS, as a complement to the proposed regulatory instruments.” Comments are due September 11, 2024. More information is available in our July 12, 2024, blog item.

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more news on Recent Federal Environmental Developments, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources section.

Firework Safety Tips: Enjoying Independence Day Without the Risks

Independence Day celebrations are not complete without some fireworks displays. The only problem is that some of the people participating in creating the displays fail to exercise due diligence, increasing the risk of personal injury to themselves and other parties.

There is a history of explosives used for fun, resulting in untold losses and, in some cases, death. A good example is the 2017 case in Oregon, where a fire was started by a firecracker flung by a 15-year-old. What followed was a fire that burned for three months straight, charring 50,000 acres, and reports of pockets of fire nine months later.

Economic losses aside, there have been quite a number of deaths reported as a result of fun-related explosives and thousands of personal injuries suffered every year, with children and young adults being most at risk. There is no problem with enjoying some fireworks as a part of the Independence Day celebration. However, you will want to exercise extra caution to reduce the risks; below are some tips you may want to borrow.

Leave It to Professionals

The beautiful fireworks display you see during Independence Day celebrations are the work of professionals who have received specialized training on safety. But still, there has been an occasion where the displays have gone wrong, resulting in revelers suffering personal injuries.

These incidents are quite rare compared to the many times individuals have suffered injuries in fireworks displays handled by untrained individuals. If you must enjoy a fireworks display and are not sure of your ability to handle explosives safely, it is best to attend a public display.

Handle With Care

Some people will not be content with a public fireworks display, and there is the thrill that comes with setting off your own fireworks. If this feels like you, and not setting off fireworks is out of the question, you must tread carefully. Most fireworks come with a how-to-use guide, and it’s best to follow manufacturer guidelines for safety.

Basic preventive measures like maintaining a safe distance between you and the fireworks after lighting, not pointing it at someone else, and using it in an open area can help avoid accidents. You may want to have water or a fire extinguisher on standby in case of an accidental fire. Lighting multiple fireworks at a time greatly increases the risks of an accident, so you may want to ensure that you light one at a time in your group.

Have the Right Person Handle It

The risk posed by fireworks is too great to entrust the responsibility of lighting to anyone, especially not children. If they must ignite fireworks, ensure there is an adult to supervise and guide them.

Alcohol, a big part of Independence Day celebrations, does not go well with tasks that require caution and sobriety, like igniting and supervising fireworks displays. If you must drink, wait until after the display to drink to avoid the chance of alcohol getting into your decision-making and, ultimately, accidents.

Clean Up

After a display, there will always be pieces of fireworks that fail to go off or burn up completely. If reignited, these pieces still pose a significant risk, and children may be tempted to reignite them out of curiosity.

So, ensure you clean up all the pieces after the display by soaking them in water before disposing of them. Remember, mistakes that result in an accident can lead to you facing legal consequences in the event they cause personal injuries or property damage to other parties.

Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. 2024

by: Lawrence J. Buckfire of Buckfire Law

For more on Firework Safety, visit the NLR Personal Injury section.

SCOTUS Freezes States’ Efforts to Resolve Water Conflict

What Happened?

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court narrowly held that three states could not enter a consent decree to settle their interstate water dispute without the support of the intervening federal government. The ruling halts the agreement between Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado to settle Texas’s claims and reconfigure water allocation under the Rio Grande Compact going forward. The decision frustrates multi-year efforts by the states to fairly apportion shrinking water supplies and continues uncertainty for water users dependent on flows from the Rio Grande. More generally, the decision highlights the federal government’s power in cases arising under interstate compacts where federal interests are “inextricably intertwined” with the outcome.

Background

In 2013, Texas sued New Mexico and Colorado, claiming that New Mexico’s increased groundwater pumping was diminishing flows from the Rio Grande, unfairly shorting water allocated to the Lonestar state. This claim arose under the Rio Grande Compact, a 1938 allocation agreement between the three states that depend on the Rio Grande’s waters. The Supreme Court allowed the federal government, although not a party to the Compact, to intervene in the dispute in 2014, based on the federal interests in delivering water to Mexico under a 1906 treaty, in operating a Bureau of Reclamation reservoir and irrigation project closely connected to Compact compliance, and in fulfilling potential federal obligations to Indian tribes. The Supreme Court held that the federal government’s interests were “inextricably intertwined” with the case.

Since that decision, the states sought a compromise, recognizing that the 1938 Compact failed to predict severe droughts and dwindling water supplies, new circumstances that require adaptation. Despite this negotiated solution, the federal government refused to sign the agreement. The federal government claimed that the settlement undermines the Compact’s plain language, which cannot be modified without congressional approval, and that the negotiated agreement would impose new obligations on the federal reservoir and irrigation project. Based on its intervenor status, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to reject the deal in the absence of its consent.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Jackson explained that the Court’s 2018 decision to allow federal claims in the case to proceed “leads inexorably” to the federal government’s approval being necessary before a valid resolution. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the dissent, cautioned that this deference to the intervenor risks federalizing interstate water disputes and limiting the necessary discretion for states to independently manage their waters. Despite previously authoring a unanimous 2018 decision that green-lighted the federal claims, his dissent pointed back to “a century’s worth” of precedent, holding that the Reclamation Act requires the federal government to comply with state control of water resources and not to assert incompatible federal interests. The majority reasoned, by contrast, that the federal government’s interest was particular to the Compact, where compliance depends on federal action.

Analysis

The Court’s acknowledgment of the federal interest in the three states aligning Rio Grande Compact compliance with contemporary water realities is expressly tailored to the unique federal role in this situation. The problem the Court focused on was the proposed resolution’s failure to include the federal government, given its intervenor status and its integral role in managing a reservoir and irrigation project essential to the Compact. This does not authorize federal interference in all interstate water compacts, as the dissent fears, but others may be “inextricably intertwined” with federal interests. Still, the pointed dissent may signal that a significant court minority stands ready to guard state control of water resources when the federal government overreaches. The decision’s immediate impact will perpetuate uncertainty for water users in all three states as the parties are forced back to trial or the negotiating table.

Biden Administration Announces Voluntary Carbon Market Principles

The recent Joint Policy Statement and Principles (Principles) released by the Biden Administration, and related remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen, mark a significant milestone in the development of the voluntary carbon market (VCM).

Our views on this announcement and a brief summary of these Principles are set out below.

This is a very encouraging, and intriguing, governmental announcement in respect of an unregulated, international market.

One of the critical aspects of this announcement is the US government’s approach to balancing market promotion with non-regulation. The VCM is notably unregulated, and the intention is for it to remain so. As such, the announcement appears to be striving to foster integrity and growth within the market whilst avoiding the imposition of rigid regulatory frameworks that could stifle growth. There is a clear nod from the government to the market’s voluntary nature, thereby allowing for flexibility and the opportunity for diverse, creative solutions to emerge. However, the VCM has faced challenges that are not unusual for a nascent, evolving market and the government clearly wants to stimulate the market by providing clear guidance that enhances trust and integrity. This delicate equilibrium is essential for the long-term success and scalability of the VCM.

These Principles therefore serve as voluntary (but government-endorsed) guidelines, moving towards establishing a structure that market participants can follow to ensure the credibility and reliability of carbon credits.

The Principles do not reshape the current market. They are based instead, in large part, on existing best practice advocated by private sector and non-governmental organisations and initiatives. We have considered in some detail in a prior article these existing quasi-regulatory bodies and their functions – much of which is echoed in the Principles.

The Principles seek to bolster integrity in three main areas: on the supply side, demand side and the actual market itself.

Supply-side

  • Principle 1 – “Integrity & Standards”: Carbon credits must meet strict integrity standards and be certified through robust, transparent verification processes to ensure additionality, quantifiability and permanence.
  • Principle 2 – “Avoid Harm”: Generating credits should cause no environmental or social harm and promote co-benefits including sustainable development and increased biodiversity, involving relevant stakeholders in the process.

Demand-side

  • Principle 3 – “Buyer Responsibility”: Companies offsetting credits should set net-zero strategies, maintain an inventory of emissions (detailing Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions) and regularly report.
  • Principle 4 – “Transparency”: Companies offsetting credits should publicly disclose details of purchased and retired credits annually, ensuring information is accessible and comparable.
  • Principle 5 – “Accurate Claims”: Public offsetting claims must accurately reflect the climate impact of credits and only use those meeting high integrity standards, prioritising internal emissions reductions.

Market-side

  • Principle 6 – “Market Integrity”: Stakeholders should seek to improve market functionality, transparency and equity to enhance the market’s overall health and high-integrity.
  • Principle 7 – “Facilitate Participation”: Policymakers and market participants should lower transaction costs and barriers for credit providers, ensuring market certainty and bankability of VCM projects, especially from developing regions.

On the supply side (Principles 1 and 2), inspiration has been drawn from, amongst other sources, the Core Carbon Principles and other standards of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. On the demand side (Principles 3, 4 and 5), inspiration has been drawn from, amongst other sources, the Claims Code of Practice and other standards of the Voluntary Carbon Market Initiative. On the market side (Principles 6 and 7) the message is more general and is aimed at promoting the integrity of the standards/registries and their participants and focussing on the policymakers. The Principles conclude with a rallying cry for policymakers and buyers to consider ways to enhance market certainty for lenders undertaking long term investments. The current financing landscape of the VCM is an area which we have also considered in some detail in a prior article.

The Principles and comments from Treasury acknowledge that the VCM, in its current state, suffers from some key challenges that inhibit growth at the scale needed to achieve national and international climate goals. The seven Principles outlined above are the government’s initial efforts at assisting to overcome those challenges. They reflect the importance of a functioning carbon reduction infrastructure (both physical and financial) to the government, and a high level of understanding of the carbon abatement ecosystem. And, perhaps most importantly, these statements recognise and encourage the involvement and initiative of all participating stakeholders to take demonstrative steps to establish a market-based approach to carbon reduction. As Secretary Yellen’s statement says, “harnessing the power of markets and private capital is critical.”

While the VCM principles announcement reflects an attempt to improve confidence in voluntary carbon offsets, at the same time the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) signalled its interest in establishing public protocols specifically for third-party verification of offsets deriving from forestry and farming. This action reflects a keen interest on both sides of the political aisle in Congress. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee noted that both the VCM principles and the USDA announcement established that, “Voluntary carbon credit markets generate new revenue streams for farmers, foresters, and rural communities, and there is clear enthusiasm across private industry and the public sector to tap into that potential.” Sen. Stabenow further notes that these actions “will strengthen the integrity of these markets and build a foundation for the future.”

The VCM principles and USDA statement can be seen as part of an effort to implement the Growing Climate Solutions Act which was designed to break down barriers for farmers, ranchers, and foresters interested in participating in carbon markets and in embracing so-called climate-smart agricultural practices. The Act was passed by Congress on a bipartisan basis and signed into law by President Biden on December 29, 2022. As the House and Senate consider “farm bills” in the near future, we can expect more action on agricultural offsets.

These announcements clearly underscore the government’s commitment to promoting the VCM without the enforcement of laws or regulations. It is a firm message of support for the VCM, and explicit recognition that development of the VCM is critical to unlocking carbon abatement projects globally. It clarifies that the current administration recognises the VCM as another component of the energy transition required to achieve national and international climate goals, as well as sustainable environmental practices. In particular, these seven Principles provide a framework that can guide the VCM’s growth. Whilst the Principles goldplate (rather than reinvent) existing best practice, this achieves the sensitive balancing act required from a government seeking to promote an unregulated market.

© 2024 Bracewell LLP
For more on the Carbon Market, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources section.

Deep-Sea Mining–Article 1: What Is Happening With Deep-Sea Mining?

Debate continues on whether the UAE Consensus achieved at COP28 represents a promising step forward or a missed opportunity in the drive towards climate neutral energy systems. However, the agreement that countries should “transition away from fossil fuels” and triple green power capacity by 2030 spotlights the need for countries to further embrace renewable power.

This series will examine the issues stakeholders need to consider in connection with deep-sea mining. We first provide an introduction to deep-sea mining and its current status. Future articles will consider in greater detail the regulatory and contractual landscape, important practical considerations, and future developments, including decisions of the ISA Council.

POLYMETALLIC NODULES

Current technology for the generation of wind and solar power (as well as the batteries needed to store such power) requires scarce raw materials, including nickel, manganese, cobalt, and copper. The fact that these minerals are found in the millions of polymetallic nodules scattered on areas of the ocean floor gives rise to another debate on whether the deep-sea mining of these nodules should be pursued.
This issue attracted considerable attention over the summer of 2023, when the International Seabed Authority (ISA) Assembly and Council held its 28th Session and, in January 2024, when Norway’s parliament (the Storting) made Norway the first country to formally authorise seabed mining activities in its waters.

INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF DEEP-SEA MINERALS: UNCLOS AND ISA

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a comprehensive regime for the management of the world’s oceans. It also established ISA.

ISA is the body that authorises international seabed exploration and mining. It also collects and distributes the seabed mining royalties in relation to those areas outside each nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Since 1994, ISA has approved over 30 ocean-floor mining exploration contracts in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, with most covering the so-called ‘Clarion-Clipperton Zone’ (an environmental management area of the Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and Mexico). These currently-approved contracts run for 15 years and permit contract holders to seek out (but not commercially exploit) polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts from the deep seabed.

UNCLOS TWO-YEAR RULE AND ISA’S 28TH SESSION

Section 1(15) of the annex to the 1994 Implementation Agreement includes a provision known as the “two-year rule.” This provision allows any member state of ISA that intends to apply for the approval of a plan of work for exploitation of the seabed to request that the ISA Council draw up and adopt regulations governing such exploitation within two years.

In July 2021, the Republic of Nauru triggered the two-year rule, seeking authority to undertake commercial exploitation of polymetallic nodules under license. That set an operative deadline of 9 July 2023.

At meetings of the ISA Assembly and ISA Council in July 2023, the ISA Council determined that more time was needed to establish processes for prospecting, exploring, and exploiting mineral resources, and a new target was set for finalising the rules: July 2025.

The expiration of the two-year rule in July 2023 does allow mining companies to submit a mining license application at any time. However, the above extension gives the ISA Council direct input into the approval process, which will make approval of any application difficult.

NORWAY’S DEEP-SEA MINING PLAN

State legislation regulates deep-sea mining in different EEZs. Norway is one of the only countries that has its own legislation (the Norway Seabed Minerals Act of 2019) regulating the exploration and extraction of deep-sea minerals.

In December 2023, Norway agreed to allow seabed mineral exploration off the coast of Norway, ahead of a formal parliamentary decision. The proposal was voted 80-20 in favour by the Storting on 9 January 2024.

The proposal will permit exploratory mining across a large section of the Norwegian seabed, after which the Storting can decide whether to issue commercial permits.

The decision initially applies to Norwegian waters and exposes an area larger than Great Britain to potential sea-bed mining, although the Norwegian government has noted that it will only issue licenses after more environmental research has been done.

The Norwegian government has defended the plan as a way to seize an economic opportunity and shore up the security of critical supply chains. However, there is concern that this will pave the way towards deep-sea mining around the world. Green activists, scientists, fishermen, and investors have called upon Oslo to reconsider its position. They cite the lack of scientific data about the effects of deep-sea mining on the marine environment, as well as the potential impact on Arctic ecosystems. In November 2023, 120 European Union lawmakers wrote an open letter to Norwegian members of the Storting, urging them unsuccessfully to reject the project, and in February 2024, the European Parliament voted in favour of a resolution that raised concerns about Norway’s deep-sea mining regulations. This resolution carries no legal power, but it does send a strong signal to Norway that the European Union does not support its plans.

In May 2024, WWF-Norway announced it will sue the Norwegian government for opening its seabed to deep-sea mining. WWF-Norway claim that the government has failed to properly investigate the consequences of its decision, has acted against the counsel of its own advisors, and has breached Norwegian law.

METHODS OF POLYMETALLIC NODULE EXTRACTION

Should Norway, or any other nation, initiate commercial deep-seabed mining, one of the following methods of mineral extraction may be employed:

Continuous Line Bucket System

This system utilises a surface vessel, a loop of cable to which dredge buckets are attached at 20–25 meter intervals, and a traction machine on the surface vessel, which circulates the cable. Operating much like a conveyor belt, ascending and descending lines complete runs to the ocean floor, gathering and then carrying the nodules to a ship or station for processing.

Hydraulic Suction System

A riser pipe attached to a surface vessel “vacuums” the seabed, for example, by lifting the nodules on compressed air or by using a centrifugal pump. A separate pipe returns tailings to the area of the mining site.

Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs)

Large ROVs traverse the ocean floor collecting nodules in a variety of ways. This might involve blasting the seafloor with water jets or collection by vacuuming.

Recent progress has been made in the development of these vehicles; a pre-prototype polymetallic nodule collector was successfully trialed in 2021 at a water depth of 4,500 metres, and in December 2022, the first successful recovery of polymetallic nodules from the abyssal plain was completed, using an integrated collector, riser, and lift system on an ROV. A glimpse of the future of deep-sea ROVs perhaps comes in the form of the development of robotic nodule-collection devices, equipped with artificial intelligence that allows them to distinguish between nodules and aquatic life.

Key to all three methods of mineral extraction is the production support vessel, the main facility for collecting, gathering, filtering, and storing polymetallic nodules. Dynamically positioned drillships, formerly utilised in the oil and gas sector, have been identified/converted for this purpose, and market-leading companies active in deep-water operations, including drilling and subsea construction, are investing in this area. It will be interesting to see how the approach to the inherent engineering and technological challenges will continue to develop.

THE RISKS OF DEEP-SEA MINING

As a nascent industry, deep-sea mining presents risks to both the environment and the stakeholders involved:

Environmental Risks

ISA’s delayed operative deadline for finalising regulations has been welcomed by parties who are concerned about the environmental impact that deep-sea mining may have.

Scientists warn that mining the deep could cause an irreversible loss of biodiversity to deep-sea ecosystems; sediment plumes, wastewater, and noise and light pollution all have the potential to seriously impact the species that exist within and beyond the mining sites. The deep-ocean floor supports thousands of unique species, despite being dark and nutrient-poor, including microbes, worms, sponges, and other invertebrates. There are also concerns that mining will impact the ocean’s ability to function as a carbon sink, resulting in a potentially wider environmental impact.

Stakeholder and Investor Risks

While deep-sea mining doesn’t involve the recovery and handling of combustible oil or gas, which is often associated with offshore operations, commercial risks associated with the deployment of sophisticated (and expensive) equipment in water depths of 2,000 metres or greater are significant. In April 2021, a specialist deep-sea mining subsidiary lost a mining robot prototype that had uncoupled from a 5-kilometer-long cable connecting it to the surface. The robot was recovered after initial attempts failed, but this illustrates the potentially expensive problems that deep-sea mining poses. Any companies wishing to become involved in deep-sea mining will also need to be careful to protect their reputation. Involvement in a deep-sea mining project that causes (or is perceived to cause) environmental damage or that experiences serious problems could attract strong negative publicity.

INVESTOR CONSIDERATIONS

Regulations have not kept up with the increased interest in deep-sea mining, and there are no clear guidelines on how to structure potential deep-sea investments. This is especially true in international waters, where a relationship with a sponsoring state is necessary. Exploitative investments have not been covered by ISA, and it is unclear how much control investors will have over the mining process. It is also unclear how investors might be able to apportion responsibility for loss/damage and what level of due diligence needs to be conducted ahead of operations. Any involvement carries with it significant risk, and stakeholders will do well to manage their rights and obligations as matters evolve.

Copyright 2024 K & L Gates
For more news on Deep Sea Mining, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

New Florida Law Requires HOAs to Adopt Hurricane Protection Measures

Last week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law House Bill 293 in an effort to help protect Florida’s single-family homes. Effective immediately, all homeowners associations in the state are mandated to establish hurricane protection specifications along with any other pertinent factors as determined by the association’s board of directors. These specifications should be adopted to ensure a cohesive external appearance for buildings within the HOA – including considerations such as “color and style” – while adhering to relevant building codes and affording exceptional protection to Florida homes.

The primary objective of House Bill 239 is to safeguard the welfare and safety of the state’s residents, as well as to guarantee consistency and uniformity in the implementation of hurricane protection measures by parcel owners. It is imperative to note that, except in cases where violations to these specifications occur, HOAs are prohibited from preventing homeowners from installing or upgrading hurricane protection products. This legislation applies universally to all homeowners associations, regardless of when the community was created.

Hurricane protection products under House Bill 239, include but are not limited to:

  • Roof systems recognized by the Florida Building Code which meet ASCE 7-22 48 standards
  • Permanent fixed storm shutters
  • Roll-down track storm shutters
  • Impact-resistant windows and doors
  • Reinforced garage doors
  • Erosion controls
  • Exterior fixed generators
  • Fuel storage tanks
  • Other hurricane protection products used to preserve and protect the structures or improvements on a parcel governed by the association

Most weather analysts have projected an above average hurricane season for 2024, predicting one of the busier hurricane seasons on record. This increase in activity has been attributed to record warm water temperatures and the influence of La Niña. As such, it underscores the critical importance of proactive measures to safeguard property and ensure the well-being of residents.

It is strongly encouraged that all homeowners associations begin the process of considering the standards for hurricane protection that are right for their communities and adopt a resolution encompassing these guidelines immediately.

© 2024 Varnum LLP
For more news on Protecting Florida Homes during Hurricane Season, visit the NLR Real Estate section.

NJDEP Proposes Bald Eagle Removal and Other Changes to New Jersey’s Threatened and Endangered Species Lists

On June 3, 2024, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection announced a rule proposal which would update the endangered species and the nongame species lists promulgated by the Fish & Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program (“ENSP”). These proposed updates would reflect, among other changes, the recategorization of the conservation status of certain species from the ENSP lists along with other structural and organizational amendments.

Primarily, the proposal celebrates the prospective reduced conservation status of three species, including the Peregrine Falcon, Bobcat, and Cope’s Gray Treefrog which each will have their conservation status reduced from “Endangered” to “Threatened.”

More significantly, the Bald Eagle, Red-headed Woodpecker, and Osprey are proposed to have their status reduced to “Special Concern” or “Secure/Stable.” The Department has further proposed partial conservation status reductions for the non-breeding populations of certain bird species including the Yellow-crowned Night-Heron, and Red-headed Woodpecker which have both been reduced to “Special Concern” for non-breeding activities. In effect, these species are being delisted, which is significant for Land Resource permitting under the Coastal Rules and Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. This also should impact permitting under Pinelands Commission regulations.

Inapposite to those species having their conservation status reduced, the Department has proposed increased conservation designations for thirty (30) species, including select species particularly impactful to development and redevelopment initiatives in New Jersey. Those include three species of bat, the Northern Myotis, Little Brown Bat, and Tricolored Bat, which will each move from an undetermined/unknown status to “Endangered.”

Lastly, the Department proposes moving currently threatened species listed on the nongame species list at N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.17 to the endangered species list at N.J.A.C. 7:25-4.13. This restructuring will leave the species’ conservation status unchanged and includes a number of special species for New Jersey development and redevelopment, such as the Bobolink and Grasshopper Sparrow.

In addition to these conservation status changes, the Department has proposed a new procedure which would allow the addition of species to the list of endangered species by notice of administrative change when that species has been added to the Federal list of endangered and threatened species of wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 at 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. and is indigenous to New Jersey. The Department notes this procedure seeks to further the goal of creating a listing that is more consistent with the Federal standard but in doing so the State will obviate the typical Administrative Procedure Act public comment process.

Matthew L. Capone contributed to this article

© 2024 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved
For more news on New Jersey’s Threatened and Endangered Species Lists, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Illinois Passes Comprehensive Law Governing Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration Projects in Illinois

On May 26, the Illinois legislature passed comprehensive carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) legislation. CCUS involves the capture of carbon dioxide directly from ambient air or uses processes to separate carbon dioxide from industrial or energy-related sources, either for use or for underground injection for long-term storage.
The Safety and Aid for the Environment in Carbon Capture and Sequestration Act (SAFE CCS Act), establishes, among other requirements, protections for pore space owners, additional requirements for CO2 pipeline development, and a permitting program for sequestration projects. CCUS projects not grandfathered from the SAFE CCS ACT will now need to adhere to Illinois state sequestration requirements in addition to existing federal regulations.

Pore Space

First, the SAFE CCS Act sets forth requirements and procedures to obtain “pore space” for sequestration. “Pore space” is defined in the Act as the “portion of the geologic media … that can be used to store carbon dioxide.” Illinois has an abundance of geologic media appropriate for sequestration, according to the Illinois State Geologic Survey, and the areas are generally far underground (from 2000 to 7000 ft below ground surface). The SAFE CCS Act specifies that title to pore space remains in the surface owner, but pore space can be leased or subject to an easement. The owner or operator of a sequestration facility must obtain pore space rights from at least 75% of the landowners that may be affected and can petition the US Department of Natural Resources for “unitization” if “holdouts” occur. Certain documents must be provided to the Department and no “pore space” can be used until a federal Class VI well permit has been issued by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

CO2 Pipelines

Second, the SAFE CCS Act amends Illinois’ existing Carbon Dioxide Transportation and Sequestration Act (CO2 Act), including the requirements for an owner or operator of a CO2 pipeline to receive a “certificate of authority” from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) to construct and operate a CO2 pipeline. The Act further requires that the ICC verify compliance with applicable Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) safety rules. The SAFE CCS ACT purports to prohibit the ICC from issuing any certificates of authority for new CO2 pipelines until the earlier of July 2026, or PHMSA’s completion of a current rulemaking process to update its CO2 pipeline safety standards. The Safe CCS Act does clarify the intention that (1) an operator receiving a certificate of authority under the CO2 Act does not have to also obtain a certificate from the ICC as a common carrier by pipeline under the Illinois Common Carrier by Pipeline Law (220 ILCS 5/15-101 et seq.); and (2) grants of certificates of authority under the CO2 Act are not limited only to pipelines transporting carbon dioxide captured from sources using coal.

Emergency Response

Third, the SAFE CCS Act requires detailed emergency response planning for CCS projects. The ACT assigns emergency response authority to the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, providing a number of responsibilities and resources to the Agency to enhance training, oversight, and enforcement capability pertaining to emergency response for CCS facilities.

Sequestration Permit Program

Fourth, the SAFE CCS Act requires sequestration facility operators to obtain a permit from the Illinois EPA prior to constructing any portion of the sequestration project. This permit is in addition to, and goes beyond the requirements of, the existing requirement to obtain a federal Class VI injection well permit from US EPA. The permitting regime under the SAFE CCS Act requires various evaluations and reports, including an evaluation of the impact on water resources used by the sequestration facility. The Illinois environmental permit will cover long-term reporting, monitoring, and financial assurance mechanisms.

Liability

Finally, the SAFE CCS Act includes provisions on the assignment of liability associated with the sequestration, storage, and management of CO2. Specifically, the SAFE CCS Act specifies that the operator of the sequestration facility, not the state, is responsible for any personal or property damage caused by the sequestration. It clarifies that the sequestered gas remains the property of the operator of the sequestration, not the owner of the pore space.

The Act also requires a variety of fees and the creation of various funds to support the administration, emergency preparedness, and environmental justice initiatives across the state. It also appears to prohibit the use of captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery processes.

Governor J.B. Pritzker has indicated he will sign the legislation when it reaches his desk. If enacted, it is expected that the Illinois EPA, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and the ICC will promulgate rules to assist with implementing the Act.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more news on Illinois’s New Carbon Capture Law, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Treasury Proposes Clean Electricity Tax Guidance

On May 29, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Treasury Department released the pre-publication version of proposed guidance to implement “technology-neutral” clean electricity tax credits, including deeming certain technologies as per se zero-emitting and outlining potential methodologies for determining how other technologies—namely those involving combustion or gasification—could qualify as zero-emitting based on a lifecycle emissions analysis (LCA). The Clean Electricity Production Credit (45Y) and Clean Electricity Investment Credit (48E) were enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 and replace the current production and investment tax credits that are explicitly tied to certain types of renewable energy technologies.

Stakeholders have cited the 45Y and 48E credits as the most important driver of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts possible from the IRA over the next decade. One study by the Rhodium Group found that the credits could reduce the power sector’s GHG emissions by up to 73 percent by 2035. The tax credits aim to give qualifying facilities the ability to develop technologies over time as they reduce emissions and offer longer-term certainty for investors and developers of clean energy projects. This proposed rule, when finalized, will be a critical driver for developers and companies allocating resources among different projects and investments.

The proposed guidance is scheduled to be published June 3, 2024 in the Federal Register, launching a 60-day comment period. A public hearing will be held August 12-13, 2024.

Proposed Guidance Details

Starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 for projects placed into service after Dec. 31, 2024, 45Y provides taxpayers with a base credit of 0.3 cents (1.5 cents, if the project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements) per kilowatt of electricity produced and sold or stored at facilities with zero or negative GHG emissions. (These per kilowatt credit values are adjusted for inflation using 1990 as the base year.) Under 48E, taxpayers would receive a 6 percent base credit (30 percent, if the project meets prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements) on qualified investment in a qualified facility for the year the project is placed in service. Both credits include bonus amounts for projects located in historical energy communities, low-income communities, or on tribal land; for meeting certain domestic manufacturing requirements; or for being part of a low-income residential building or economic benefit project. Direct pay and transferability are options for both credits. Both credits are in effect until 2032, when they become subject to a three-year phaseout.

Technologies recognized as per se zero-emissions in the guidance are wind, solar, hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic, nuclear fission and fusion, geothermal, and certain types of waste energy recovery property (WERP). The guidance also outlines how energy storage can qualify, including by proposing definitions of electricity, thermal, and hydrogen storage property.

A principal debate in the proposal is how to determine, using an LCA, whether certain combustion and gasification (C&G) technologies can qualify as zero-emitting.

The guidance includes a set of definitions and interpretations critical to implementation of the tax credits. For example, the proposed C&G definition includes a hydrogen fuel cell if it “produced electricity using hydrogen that was produced by an electrolyzer powered, in whole or in part, by electricity from the grid because some of the electricity from the grid was produced through combustion or gasification.” The proposed C&G definition would also include both biogas- and biomass-based power, but eligibility depends on the LCA results; for biomass, the guidance seeks comment on what spatial and temporal scales should apply and how land use impacts the LCA.

The guidance states that the IRS intends to establish rules for qualifying facilities that generate electricity from biogas, renewable natural gas, and fugitive sources of methane. The guidance says that Treasury and the IRS “anticipate” requiring that, for such facilities, the gas must originate from the “first productive use of the relevant methane.”

The proposed C&G definition allows for carbon capture and storage (CCS) that meets LCA requirements. However, the IRA does not allow credits to go toward facilities already using certain other credits, including the relatively more generous section 45Q credits for CCS.

Specifically, there are seven other credits that cannot be used in combination with a 45Y or 48E credit: 45 (existing clean electricity production credit); 45J (advanced nuclear electricity credit); 45Q (CCS); 45U (zero-emission nuclear credit); 48 (existing clean electricity investment credit); for 45Y, 48E (new clean electricity production credit); and for 48E, 45Y (new clean electricity investment credit).

The guidance proposes beginning and ending boundaries for LCAs, stating “the starting boundaries would include the processes necessary to produce and collect or extract the raw materials used to produce electricity from combustion or gasification technologies, including those used as energy inputs to electricity production. This includes the emissions effects of relevant land management activities or changes related to or associated with feedstock production.” Another topic in the guidance is the use of carbon offsets to reach net-zero qualification status, with the proposal seeking comment on boundaries: “offsets and offsetting activities that are unrelated to the production of electricity by a C&G Facility, including the production and distribution of any input fuel, may not be taken into account” by an LCA. The guidance also includes rules on qualified interconnection costs in the basis of a low-output associated qualified facility, the expansion of a facility and incremental production, and the retrofitting of an existing facility.

The guidance describes the role of the Department of Energy (DOE) in implementing the tax credits. Any future changes to technologies designated as zero-emitting or to the LCA models must be completed with analyses prepared by DOE’s national labs along with other technical experts. Facilities seeking eligibility may also request a “provisional emissions rate,” which DOE would administer with the national labs and experts “as appropriate.”

Next Steps

As noted above, the proposed guidance is scheduled to be published June 3, 2024 in the Federal Register, launching a 60-day comment period for interested parties to make arguments and provide evidence for changes they would like to see before the rule becomes final. A public hearing will be held August 12-13, 2024. The Treasury Department in consultation with interagency experts plans to carefully review comments and continue to evaluate how other types of clean energy technologies, including C&G technologies, may qualify for the clean electricity credits.

© 2024 Van Ness Feldman LLP
For more news on Clean Energy Tax Credits, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Recently Effective & Pending State Housing Laws: 2024 Land Use, Environmental & Natural Resources Update

Various state housing bills are currently making their way through the State Legislature that are expected to benefit mixed-income multifamily housing developers. The following summaries reflect the status of the legislation as of May 15, 2024. The legislative process is ongoing and future amendments are expected.

The recently effective state housing laws are also summarized below.

PART I: RECENTLY EFFECTIVE STATE HOUSING LAWS

Governor Newsom approved multiple state housing bills passed by the State Assembly and Senate during the last legislative session. The following is an abbreviated summary of a few of the key bills that are expected to benefit mixed-income multifamily housing developers, with a more detailed summary available in our prior legal alert.

SENATE BILL 423 — EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF SENATE BILL 35

SB 423 (Wiener) extends the sunset provision for and makes other substantive changes to SB 35. As explained in our prior legal alert, SB 35 provides for a streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval process for qualifying housing development projects in local jurisdictions that have not made sufficient progress towards their state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

SB 423 made the following key amendments to SB 35:

  • Extended SB 35 to January 1, 2036
  • Expanded SB 35 to apply when a local jurisdiction fails to adopt a housing element in substantial compliance with state housing element law (regardless of RHNA progress), as specified and as determined by HCD
  • Revised the coastal zone development prohibition to allow for projects in specified urban coastal locations (e.g., property not vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise or within close proximity to a wetland) where the property is zoned for multifamily housing and is subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan
  • Removed skilled and trained workforce requirements for projects below 85 feet in height and imposes modified skilled and trained workforce requirements, as specified, for projects at least 85 feet in height. In exchange, projects with 50 or more dwelling units and using construction craft employees to meet apprenticeship program requirements and provide health care expenditures for each employee, as specified

Please see our prior legal alert for information about other SB 35 amendments made by SB 423, including San Francisco-specific amendments.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1287 — ADDITIONAL DENSITY BONUS UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW

AB 1287 (Alvarez) amended the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915) by incentivizing the construction of housing units for both the “missing middle” and very-low-income households by providing for an additional density bonus, and incentive/ concession for projects providing moderate-income units or very-low-income units.

The project must provide the requisite percentage of on-site affordable units to obtain the maximum density bonus (50%) under prior law: 15% very-low-income units, or 24% low-income units, or 44% moderate-income (ownership only) units (the Base Bonus). To qualify for an additional density bonus (up to 100%) and an additional incentive/concession under AB 1287, the project must provide additional on-site affordable units, as specified (the Added Bonus). The Added Bonus may be obtained by adding moderate-income units to either a rental or ownership project, but that is capped at a total maximum of 50% moderate-income units.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1633 — EXPANSION OF HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT PROTECTIONS: CEQA

AB 1633 (Ting) closed a loophole in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code section 65589.5 et seq.) by establishing when a local agency’s failure to exercise its discretion under CEQA, or abuse of its discretion under CEQA, constitutes a violation of the HAA.

To qualify under AB 1633, the project must be a “housing development project” under the HAA and meet other specified requirements, as summarized in our prior legal alert. Under AB 1633, the following circumstances constitute “disapproval” of the project, in which case the local agency could be subject to enforcement under the HAA:

  • CEQA Exemptions. If (i) the project qualifies for a CEQA exemption based on substantial evidence in the record (and is not subject to an exception to that exemption) and (ii) the local agency does not make a lawful determination, as defined, on the exemption within 90 days (with a possible extension, as specified) of timely written notice from the applicant, as specified.
  • Other CEQA Determinations. If (i) the project qualifies for a negative declaration, addendum, EIR, or comparable environmental review document under CEQA; (ii) the local agency commits an abuse of discretion, as defined, by failing to approve the applicable CEQA document in bad faith or without substantial evidence in the record to support the legal need for further environmental study; (iii) the local agency requires further environmental study; and (iv) the local agency does not make a lawful determination, as defined, on the applicable CEQA document within 90 days of timely written notice from the applicant, as specified.

AB 1633 includes a limited exception to enforcement where a court finds that the local agency acted in good faith and had reasonable cause to disapprove the project due to the existence of a controlling question of law about the application of CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines as to which there was a substantial ground for difference of opinion at the time of the disapproval.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1485 — STATE ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING LAWS

AB 1485 (Haney) granted the California Attorney General the “unconditional right to intervene” in lawsuits enforcing state housing laws, whether intervening in an independent capacity or pursuant to a notice of referral from HCD. Under prior law, the Attorney General and HCD were required to petition the court to be granted intervenor status and join a lawsuit, which can be a “lengthy and onerous process.”

PART II: PENDING STATE HOUSING LAWS

Various state housing bills are currently making their way through the State Legislature that are expected to benefit mixed-income multifamily housing developers. AB 2243 (Wicks) would amend AB 2011 (the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022). AB 1893 (Wicks) and AB 1886 (Wicks and Alvarez) would amend Builder’s Remedy provisions under the HAA. AB 2560 (Alvarez) and SB 951 (Wiener) would help facilitate housing development in the coastal zone. AB 3068 (Haney) would provide for the streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval of qualifying adaptive reuse projects involving the conversion of an existing building to residential or mixed-uses. SB 1227 (Wiener) would help facilitate middle-income housing and other projects in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone.

The following summaries reflect the status of the legislation as of May 15, 2024. The legislative process is ongoing and future amendments are expected.

ASSEMBLY BILL 2243 — AB 2011 AMENDMENTS

AB 2243 (Wicks) would amend AB 2011 (operative as of July 1, 2023). As explained in our prior legal alert, AB 2011 provides for “by right” streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA, no discretion) approval of qualifying mixed-income and affordable housing development projects along commercial corridors in zoning districts where office, retail, and/or parking uses are principally permitted.

As currently proposed, AB 2243 would:

Project Review and Approval
  • Require the local government to approve the AB 2011 project within a specified timeframe. Once the project is deemed to be consistent with applicable objective planning standards, the local government would be required to approve the project within 180 days (for projects with more than 150 housing units) or 90 days (for projects with 150 or fewer housing units).
  • Require the local government to determine project consistency or inconsistency with applicable objective planning standards within 30 days when a project is resubmitted to address written feedback. The otherwise applicable timeframe is within 60 or 90 days, with the longer timeframe applying to projects with more than 150 housing units.
  • Provide that a density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law, including related incentives, concessions and/or waivers, “shall not cause the project to be subject to a local discretionary government review process” even if the requested incentives, concessions and/or waivers are not specified in a local ordinance. This is important because some local governments purport to require discretionary approval for specified “off menu” incentives, concessions and waivers despite the fact that AB 2011 provides for a ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) project approval process and specifically contemplates utilization of the State Density Bonus Law in conjunction with AB 2011.
  • Provide that the Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) requirement would be imposed as a condition of project approval versus prior to project approval. If any remedial action is required due to the presence of hazardous substances on the project site, that would need to occur prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (as specified).
Residential Density
  • Provide that the AB 2011 (base) residential density, which varies depending on the location and size of the project site, is now the “allowable” density (prior to any density bonus) instead of a minimum (“meet or exceed”) density requirement.
  • Impose a new minimum residential density requirement, which would be 75% of the greater of the applicable “allowable” residential density.
  • Specify that the imposition of applicable objective planning standards shall not preclude the “required” (minimum) AB 2011 residential density (prior to any density bonus) or require a reduction in unit sizes. It appears that this new provision is instead intended to apply to the “allowable” AB 2011 residential density pursuant to the cross-referenced subsections.
Commercial Corridor Frontage Requirements
  • Revise the definition for “commercial corridor” based on the applicable height limit. Where local zoning sets a height limit for the project site of less than 65 feet, the right-of-way would need to be at least 70 feet, which is the current AB 2011 requirement. For all other project sites, the right-of-way would now only need to be at least 50 feet.
  • Clarifies that the width of the right-of-way includes sidewalks for purposes of determining whether it is a “commercial corridor.”
  • Expand eligible sites to include conversions of “existing office buildings” that meet all other AB 2011 requirements, even if they are not on a commercial corridor.
Project Site Size Requirements
  • Waive the current 20-acre project site size limitation for “regional malls” that are up to 100 Regional malls is defined to include malls where (i) the permitted uses on the site include at least 250,000 square feet of retail, (ii) at least two-thirds of the permitted uses on the site are retail, and (iii) at least two of the permitted retail uses on the site are at least 10,000 square feet. Additional criteria for the redevelopment of regional mall sites is expected to be added to the bill.
Setback Requirements
  • Provide that density bonus incentives, concessions, and waivers permitted under the State Density Bonus Law may be utilized to deviate from specified AB 2011 setback requirements related to existing adjacent residential uses. The HCD previously opined that under existing AB 2011, only the AB 2011 height and density maximums can be modified via the density bonus approval process.
Freeway, Industrial Use, & Oil/Natural Gas Facility Proximity
  • Eliminate the freeway proximity and active oil/natural gas facility proximity prohibitions and replace those with specified air filtration media requirements.
  • Revise the AB 2011 limitation on project sites dedicated to industrial uses. Currently, project sites are disqualified where more than one-third of the square footage is dedicated to industrial use or the project site adjoins a site exceeding that threshold. “Dedicated to industrial use” would no longer include sites (i) where the most recently permitted use was industrial, but that use has not existed on the site for over three years; or (ii) where the site is designated industrial by the general plan, but residential uses are a principally permitted use on the site or the site adjoins an existing residential use.
  • Revise the definition of “freeway” to specify that freeway on-ramps and off-ramps are not included.
Coastal Zone Projects
  • Newly prohibit AB 2011 projects in the coastal zone that do not meet SB 35 coastal zone siting requirements (as recently amended by SB 423) under Government Code section 4(a)(6), exclusive of the requirement for the project site to be zoned for multifamily housing (since AB 2011 allows for multifamily housing on commercially zoned properties), including (but not limited to) where the applicable area of the coastal zone is not subject to a certified local coastal program or a certified land use plan.
  • Provide that the public agency with coastal development permitting authority, as applicable, shall approve the permit if it determines that the project is consistent with all objective standards of the local government’s certified local coastal program or certified land use plan, as applicable.
  • Provide that any density bonus, concession, incentive, waiver, and/or (reduced) parking ratios granted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law “shall not constitute a basis to find the project inconsistent with the local coastal program.”
Residential Conversion Projects
  • Eliminate the residential density limit for the conversion of existing buildings to residential use, except where the project would include net new square footage exceeding 20% of the “overall square footage of the project.”
  • Prohibit the local government from requiring common open space beyond “what is required for the existing project site” versus required pursuant to the objective standards that would otherwise apply pursuant to the closest zoning district that allows for the AB 2011 residential (base) density, where applicable.
  • Exempt the conversion of “existing office buildings” from the commercial corridor frontage requirement.
Clarifications
  • Clarify that the AB 2011 on-site affordable housing requirement only applies to new housing units created by the project.
  • Clarify that the number of on-site affordable housing units required under AB 2011 is based on number of housing units in the project prior to any density bonus (i.e., the “base” project), which is consistent with the State Density Bonus Law.
  • Clarify the process for calculating the on-site affordable housing requirement under AB 2011 where the local jurisdiction requires a higher percentage of affordable units and/or a deeper level of affordability.
  • Clarify that the “allowable” density under AB 2011 is calculated prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law.
  • Clarify that “urban uses” includes a public park that is surrounded by other urban uses.
Implications

AB 2243 would make important clarifications in advance of the to-be-provided HCD guidance document on the implementation of AB 2011. The bill would make important amendments to the prior freeway and oil/natural gas facility proximity prohibitions by instead requiring installation of air filtration media, consistent with Senate Bill 4 (Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023). The bill would also help facilitate AB 2011 projects in specified coastal zone areas. Under existing law, a qualifying AB 2011 project would be subject to streamlined ministerial approval at the local level, but not by the Coastal Commission, which could separately trigger a discretionary (i.e., CEQA) review and approval process. AB 2243 partially addresses that, but only in qualifying coastal zone areas (pursuant to SB 423, as modified) that are subject to a certified local coastal program or certified land use plan, which excludes various coastal zone areas.

ASSEMBLY BILL 2560 & SENATE BILL 951 — COASTAL ZONE PROJECTS

Assembly Bill 2560

AB 2560 (Alvarez) would amend the State Density Bonus Law to partially address coastal zone projects. Currently, the State Density Bonus Law explicitly provides that it “does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976” (Public Resources Code § 30000 et seq.). As currently proposed, AB 2560 would revise that provision to instead provide that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers, or reductions of development standards, and (reduced) parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the State Density Bonus Law “shall be permitted notwithstanding the California Coastal Act of 1976” but only if the development is not located on a site that is any of the following:

  • An area of the coastal zone that is not subject to a certified local coastal program
  • An area of the coastal zone subject to paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 30603 of the Public Resources Code (i.e., within a specified distance of the sea, estuary, stream, coastal bluff, tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, or sensitive coastal resources area)
  • An area of the coastal zone that is vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment
  • A parcel within the coastal zone that is not zoned for multifamily housing
  • A parcel in the coastal zone and located on either of the following: (i) on, or within a 100-foot radius of, a wetland, as defined in Section 30121 of the Public Resources Code or (ii) on prime agricultural land, as defined in Sections 30113 and 30241 of the Public Resources Code
Implications

AB 2560 should help facilitate density bonus projects in coastal zone areas, but the coastal zone area would need to be subject to a certified local coastal program (versus either that or a certified land use plan pursuant to SB 423). Again, that excludes various coastal zone areas.

Senate Bill 951

SB 951 (Wiener) would amend the State Housing Element Law (Government Code § 65580 et seq.). Existing law requires rezoning by a local government, including adoption of minimum density and development standards (as specified), when the local government’s Housing Element site inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the applicable state mandated RHNA. As currently proposed, SB 951 would require local governments in the coastal zone to make “any necessary local coastal program updates” to meet the applicable RHNA.

SB 951 would also amend the California Coastal Act to target the City and County of San Francisco. Existing law provides that approval of a coastal development permit by a “coastal county” with a certified local coastal program may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission under specified circumstances, including where the approved use is not “the principal permitted use” under the local zoning ordinance or zoning map. As currently proposed, SB 351 would provide that for purposes of that provision, “coastal county” does not include a local government that is both a city and county.

Implications

SB 951 would effectively require consistency between local coastal programs and any upzoning or rezoning required under State Housing Element Law. The appealability of coastal zone permits approved by the City and County of San Francisco would also be limited by the bill, which could help facilitate new housing development projects.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1893 & ASSEMBLY BILL 1886 — BUILDER’S REMEDY AMENDMENTS

As explained in our prior legal alert, the Builder’s Remedy applies when a local jurisdiction has not adopted an updated Housing Element in compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65580, et seq.), in which case the local jurisdiction cannot deny a qualifying housing development project even if it is inconsistent with the local general plan and zoning ordinance (subject to limited exceptions).

To qualify for the Builder’s Remedy, the project must currently (i) fall under the definition of a “housing development project” under the HAA (i.e., a project consisting of residential units only, mixed-use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use, or transitional or supportive housing) and (ii) dedicate at least 20% of the dwelling units in the project as lower income (or 100% of the units as moderate income), as defined in the HAA.

Assembly Bill 1893

As currently proposed, AB 1893 would (i) reduce the required percentage of affordable units for mixed-income Builder’s Remedy projects from 20% lower income to 10% very low-income; (ii) impose new size and location guardrails on Builder’s Remedy projects; and (iii) authorize local jurisdictions to require compliance with other specified objective development standards so long as they do not reduce the “allowed” residential density or result in an increase in “actual costs.” AB 1893 would also eliminate the affordability requirement for Builder’s Remedy projects consisting of 10 units or fewer, so long as the project site is smaller than one acre with a minimum density of 10 units per acre.

New Basis for Denial & New Project Requirements

AB 1893 would significantly amend the most controversial component of the Builder’s Remedy, which is that a local jurisdiction without a substantially compliant Housing Element (“Non-Compliant Jurisdiction”) cannot deny a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project unless specified findings are made, which are intended to create a high threshold for denial by local jurisdictions.

As currently proposed, AB 1893 would newly authorize a Non-Compliant Jurisdiction to deny a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project if the project fails to meet any of the following “objective” standards. In other words, Builder’s Remedy projects would need to meet all the following new requirements (unless the project is “grandfathered” as explained below):

  • The project site must be designated by the general plan or located in a zone where housing, retail, office, or parking are “permissible” uses. Alternatively, if the project site is designated or zoned for agricultural use, at least 75% of the perimeter of the project site must adjoin parcels that are developed with urban uses, as defined under AB 2011. Recall that AB 2243 would amend the AB 2011 definition of “urban use” to clarify that urban use includes a public park that is surrounded by other urban uses.
  • The project site must not be on a site or adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is “dedicated to industrial use,” as defined under AB 2011. Recall that AB 2243 would amend the AB 2011 definition of “dedicated to industrial use” to no longer include sites (i) where the most recently permitted use was industrial, but that use has not existed on the site for over three years; or (ii) where the site is designated industrial by the general plan, but residential uses are a principally permitted use on the site or the site adjoins an existing residential use.
  • The residential density for the project must not exceed the “greatest” of the following density calculations, as applicable, prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law (there is no codified limit under existing law):
    • For project sites within “high or highest resource census tracts” (as defined): (i) 50% greater than the “maximum” density deemed appropriate to accommodate (lower income) housing for the local jurisdiction as specified in Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) (e.g., for a local jurisdiction in a metropolitan county, “at least” 30 dwelling units per acre); or (ii) three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law (prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law), whichever is greater.
    • For other project sites, (i) the “maximum” density appropriate to accommodate (lower income) housing for the local jurisdiction as specified in Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) (see above); or (ii) twice the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law (prior to any density bonus under the State Density Bonus Law), whichever is greater.
    • For project sites located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, up to 35 dwelling units per acre more than the “amount allowable” specified above, as applicable.
    • The project must comply with “other” objective development standards (as defined) imposed by the local jurisdiction that apply in closest zone in the local jurisdiction for multi-family residential use at the “allowed” residential density If no such zone exists, the applicable objective standards shall be those for the zone that allows the greatest density within the city, county, or city and county, as applicable.

AB 1893 would provide that in no case may the local agency apply any objective development standards that will (i) have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project at the “allowed” residential density (see above) or (ii) result in an increase in “actual costs.” The local agency would bear the burden of proof under these circumstances.

Project “Grandfathering”

As currently proposed, the foregoing new requirements would not apply to Builder’s Remedy applications that are “deemed complete” on or before April 1, 2024. Under existing law, “deemed complete” is defined to mean that the applicant has submitted a SB 330 preliminary application or, if that has not been submitted, a complete development application (as defined) has been submitted. AB 1893 would add that the local agency shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that the applicable application is not complete.

Implications

AB 1893 is an attempt to “modernize” the Builder’s Remedy by providing clarity to developers, local jurisdictions, and courts to avoid the “legal limbo” described by Attorney General Rob Bonta. As part of that compromise, significant new requirements would be imposed on Builder’s Remedy projects, including a new “cap” on residential density where no codified limit currently exists. In return, the clarifications made by AB 1893 and the reduced affordability requirement for mixed-income projects could help facilitate Builder’s Remedy projects in Non-Compliant Jurisdictions.

Assembly Bill 1886

A recent Builder’s Remedy lawsuit exposed some ambiguity regarding when a Housing Element is deemed “substantially compliant“ with State Housing Element Law. Opposing sides of the litigation disputed where (retroactive) self-certification by the local jurisdiction was sufficient. The court ruled that it was not. See our prior legal alert for our coverage of this ruling, which appears to be the impetus for the amendments proposed under AB 1886 (Alvarez and Wicks).

As currently proposed, AB 1886 would:

  • Clarify the point at which a Housing Element is deemed substantially compliant with State Housing Element Law: (i) the Housing Element has been adopted by the local jurisdiction and (ii) the local jurisdiction has received an affirmative determination of substantial compliance from HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction.
  • Clarify that the Housing Element shall continue to be considered in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law until either: (i) HCD or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the adopted Housing Element is no longer in substantial compliance (e.g., where any required rezoning is not approved in a timely manner) or (ii) the end of the applicable Housing Element cycle.
  • Specify that Housing Element compliance status is determined at the time the SB 330 Preliminary Application is submitted for the qualifying Builder’s Remedy project, which is consistent with HCD’s prior determination that the Builder’s Remedy is vested on that filing date. If a SB 330 Preliminary Application is not submitted, then the compliance status would be determined when a complete development application (as defined) is filed for the Builder’s Remedy project.
    • Require a local jurisdiction that adopted its Housing Element despite HCD’s non-compliance determination to submit the required findings, as specified, to HCD. In any legal proceeding initiated to enforce the HAA, HCD’s determination on the required findings would create a rebuttable presumption of substantial compliance or lack thereof.
Implications

AB 1886 would make it clear that a local jurisdiction cannot “self-certify” its Housing Element. Rather, an affirmative determination must be granted by HCD or, if a local jurisdiction adopts its Housing Element notwithstanding HCD’s determination to the contrary, a court of competent jurisdiction would need to agree with the local jurisdiction, notwithstanding the “rebuttable presumption” in favor of HCD’s non-compliance determination, where applicable.

ASSEMBLY BILL 3068 — ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS

AB 3068 (Haney, Quirk-Silva, and Wicks) would provide for the streamlined ministerial (i.e., no CEQA) approval of qualifying adaptive reuse projects involving the conversion of an existing building to residential or mixed-uses, as specified. Qualifying adaptive reuse projects would be deemed “a use by right” regardless of the applicable zoning district, with the exception of any proposed non-residential uses.

As currently proposed, the following requirements would need to be met:

Threshold Requirements
  • The project must retrofit and repurpose an existing building to create new residential or mixed-uses (Adaptive Reuse). The Adaptive Reuse of light industrial buildings is prohibited unless the local planning director (or equivalent) determines that the “specific light industrial use is no longer useful for industrial purposes.”
  • At least 50% of the Adaptive Reuse project must be designated for residential use, which is defined to include housing units, dormitories, boarding houses, and group housing. For purposes of calculating total project square footage, underground spaces, including basements or underground parking garages, are excluded.
  • Any nonresidential uses must be “consistent with the land uses allowed by the zoning or a continuation of an existing zoning nonconforming use.”
  • If the existing building is a listed historic resource or is over 50 years old, specified requirements must be met.
Affordability Requirements
  • For rental projects, either (i) 15% of the units must be lower income (as defined) or (ii) 8% of the units must be very low income and 5% of the units must be extremely low income (as defined), unless different local requirements apply.
  • For ownership projects, either (i) 15% of the units must be lower income (as defined) or (ii) 30% of the units must be moderate income (as defined), unless different local requirements apply.
  • Where different local requirements apply, the project must include the higher percentage requirement and the lowest income target, unless local requirements require greater than 15% lower income units (only), in which case other specified requirements apply.
  • For rental projects, the affordable units must be restricted for 55 years and for ownership projects, the affordable units must be restricted for 45 years.
  • Affordable units in the project must have the same bedroom and bathroom count ratio as the market rate units, be equitably distributed within the project, and have the same type or quality of appliances, fixtures, and finishes.
Project Site Requirements
  • The Adaptive Reuse project site must be in an urbanized area or urban cluster (as defined and specified) and at least 75% of the perimeter must adjoin (as defined) parcels that are developed with urban uses (not defined in AB 3068 but separately defined in AB 2011).
  • Required Phase I ESA and if a recognized environmental condition is found, specified requirements must be met.
Labor Requirements
  • All construction workers must be paid at least the general prevailing wage of per diem wages for the type of work in the geographic area (as specified), except that apprentices registered in approved programs (as specified) may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate.
  • The prevailing wage requirement must be included in all construction contracts, and all contractors and subcontractors must comply with specified requirements.
  • If the Adaptive Reuse project would include 50 or more dwelling units, additional requirements would apply (as specified), including but not limited to participation in an approved apprenticeship program and health care expenditures for any construction craft employees.
Project Approval Process
  • If the Adaptive Reuse project is determined by the local planning director (or equivalent) to be consistent with the foregoing requirements (referred to collectively as “objective planning standards”), the local agency must approve the project. That consistency determination must be based on whether there is “substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent with the objective planning standards.”
  • If the project is deemed to conflict with any applicable objective planning standards, the local agency must notify the project sponsor within 60 to 90 days of submittal of the development proposal, depending on whether the project contains more than 150 dwelling units. If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation (as specified), the project shall be deemed to satisfy applicable objective planning
  • Design review may be conducted by the local agency but must be objective (as specified) and must be concluded within 90 to 180 days of submittal of the development proposal, depending on whether the project contains more than 150 dwelling units.
Development Impact Fees

Adaptive Reuse projects would be exempt from all development impact fees “that are not directly related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site from nonresidential to residential or mixed-use” and any development impact fees charged must be “proportional to the difference in impacts caused by the change of use.” The project sponsor may also request that payment of development impact fees be deferred to the date that the certificate of occupancy is issued, subject to a written agreement to pay the development impact fees at that time.

Adjacent Projects

A qualifying Adaptive Reuse project “may include the development of new residential or mixed-use structures on undeveloped areas and parking areas on the parcels adjacent to the proposed adaptive reuse project site” if specified requirements are met.

Implications

AB 3068 would be another tool in the growing toolbox available to real estate developers to encourage the adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial buildings, including office buildings. Financial feasibility is likely to remain an issue due to high interest rates and construction costs. There are well-documented design challenges associated with the conversion of existing buildings to residential use due to required compliance with the strict provisions of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code, and local amendments to those codes. Even if alternate buildings standards are available for adaptive reuse projects (see the directive under AB 529), it not clear yet whether alternative standards would be available for required seismic upgrades, which are often cost-prohibitive.

Financial feasibility would be partially addressed by AB 3068, which would authorize local agencies to establish an Adaptive Reuse Investment Program funded by ad valorem property tax revenues (as specified), which could be transferred to the owners of qualifying Adaptive Reuse projects for the purpose of subsidizing the on-site affordable housing units required by AB 3068. The bill would also “align program requirements to encourage the utilization of existing programs such as the Federal Historic Tax Credit, the newly adopted California Historic Tax Credit, the Mills Act, and the California Historical Building Code.”

SB 1227 — SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION ZONE PROJECTS

SB 1227 (Wiener) aims to speed the recovery of downtown San Francisco by creating a new CEQA exemption for qualifying student housing and mixed-use residential projects (along with commercial and institutional projects) in the Downtown Revitalization Zone, which includes the Financial District, Union Square, Eastern SOMA, Mid-Market, and Civic Center neighborhoods. Projects that do not meet all the requirements for the new CEQA exemption could qualify for the new CEQA streamlining process proposed under the bill. SB 1227 would also create a new property tax exemption for moderate-income housing in the Downtown Revitalization Zone.

Qualifying Downtown Revitalization Zone Projects

As currently proposed, the following threshold requirements would need to be met:

  • The project site must be in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone.
  • The general plan land use and zoning designations for the project site must allow for commercial, institutional, student housing, or mixed-uses (as specified below), as applicable to the project.
  • The project must not include any hotel uses, and if residential uses are proposed, the residential square footage must be less than two-thirds the total project square footage (i.e., the project cannot be a “housing development project” already protected under the HAA). The foregoing square footage limitation (see specified calculation requirements) would not apply to student housing.
  • To the extent that residential uses are proposed, the project must comply with applicable San Francisco inclusionary affordable housing requirements.
  • The project must not require the demolition of restricted affordable units, rent-controlled units, or a hotel (as specified). See also the specific requirements that apply to other existing and prior tenant-occupied housing.
  • The project must comply with 24 enumerated San Francisco ordinances related to development impact fees and environmental protection (including but not limited to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and water and energy consumption) and specified provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code.
  • The project site must not be environmentally sensitive, e.g., a delineated earthquake fault zone, habitat for protected species, or a hazardous waste site (as defined and specified).
  • The project must not result in net additional emissions of greenhouse gases from demolition or construction.
New CEQA Exemption

As currently proposed, the following additional requirements would need to be met to qualify for the new CEQA exemption:

  • Prevailing wage, skilled and trained workforce, and/or health care expenditure and apprenticeship requirements must be met (as specified), depending on the size of the project.
  • The project must not include any warehouse uses.
  • The project must not require the demolition of a building that is over 75 years old (regardless of its historic status) or result in “substantial harm” to a building on a federal, state, or local historic registry.
  • The project must be LEED Platinum certified (if over 1,000 square feet).
  • The project must be in an area with a per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) level 15% lower than the city or regional VMT.
New CEQA Streamlining Pathway

As currently proposed, San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone projects that meet the threshold requirements above, but not all of the additional requirements for the new CEQA exemption, could instead pursue CEQA streamlining whereby the project could be certified by the Governor prior to certification of an EIR for the project pursuant to the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021 (Leadership Act), which authorizes the Governor to certify qualifying projects (before January 1, 2032) for CEQA streamlining. One of the benefits of CEQA streamlining under the Leadership Act is that any CEQA litigation must be resolved (to the extent feasible) within 270 days, as specified.

As currently proposed, the following additional requirements would need to be met to qualify for CEQA streamlining:

  • Prevailing wage, skilled, and trained workforce requirements must be met (as specified).
  • The project must be at least LEED Gold certified (versus Platinum) if the project contains residential, retail, commercial, sports, cultural, entertainment, or recreational uses.
  • The project must not demolish a historic structure that is placed on a national, state, or local historic register (versus a building that is over 75 years old, regardless of its historic status).
  • The project must avoid a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical or cultural resource.
  • The project must avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts in a disadvantaged community (as defined) and any required mitigation measures must be undertaken in, and directly benefit, the affected community.
  • The project must not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA that would require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the lead agency.
  • The lead agency must approve a project certified by the Governor before January 1, 2031.

Please see the text of SB 1227 for more information about the proposed CEQA streamlining provisions for qualifying San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone projects.

New Property Tax Exemption for Moderate-Income Housing

This new (welfare) property tax exemption would allow for a partial exemption equal to the percentage of the value of the property that is equal to the percentage of the number of units serving moderate-income households. As currently proposed, the following requirements would need to be met to qualify:

  • The project must be in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone.
  • The project must include moderate-income rental units, as defined and specified.
  • The project must be owned and operated by a charitable organization (as defined), which includes (but is not limited to) limited partnerships in which the managing partner is an eligible nonprofit corporation or eligible limited liability company meeting specified requirements.
  • A building permit or site permit for the residential units on the property must be filed before January 1, 2035, and the property owner must claim the exemption within five years following the issuance of the first building permit. The new property tax exemption would also apply with respect to lien dates occurring on or after January 1, 2025.
Implications

SB 1227 should help facilitate the development of new housing for the “missing in the middle” in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone by providing for a new property tax exemption for projects that include moderate-income rental units. That could in turn help increase the financial feasibility of converting underutilized commercial buildings to mixed-uses, including residential uses.

SB 1227 would impose robust labor requirements for both the new CEQA exemption and CEQA streamlining pathway for qualifying projects in the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization Zone, which could inhibit the utilization of those benefits.

© 2010-2024 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
For more news on California State Housing Laws, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.