Washington

Litigation Activity—Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Legal challenges to Washington’s Clean Air Rule, a so-called baseline-credit program for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions promulgated in September 2016, are continuing.

Association of Washington Business v. Department of Ecology

With federal court litigation on hold, the utilities and industry associations and Department of Ecology have exchanged merits briefs on state law challenges to the Clean Air Rule in consolidated actions in Thurston County’s Superior Court. No. 16-2- 03923-34 (Thurston Cty. Super. Ct.). The petitioners have marshaled a host of arguments for why the rule should be invalidated under state administrative and constitutional law. These include, for example:

• The Washington Clean Air Act (CAA) does not permit Ecology to regulate fuel sellers and natural gas distributors as “indirect emitters,” because their products do not, without being burned by a consumer, generate emissions. Ecology can only develop “emission standards” for “direct emitters.”
• The law establishing statewide GHG emission limits required Ecology to gain approval from the legislature before implementing a comprehensive regulation to achieve the reductions.
• The state CAA does not allow Ecology to regulate with emission reduction units (ERUs) (credits, as the petitioners label them). ERUs are generated by purchasing emission allowances from other GHG emission programs, by projects that reduce emissions, or by reducing emissions at a regulated facility beyond the amount required by the rule. Fuel sellers and natural distributors can only comply with the regulation by investing in ERU projects or obtaining ERUs from third parties.
• The ERU reserve system, which sets aside ERUs to allow GHG emissions for new sources and for other purposes, is an unconstitutional “tax.”
• The rule imposes certain GHG reporting requirements for transportation fuels that are prohibited by Wash. Rev. Code. 70.94.151(5)(a)(iii).
• Ecology did not comply with the State Environmental Policy Act by:
  • Failing to account for the “leakage” of GHG emissions to other countries with less stringent GHG regulations and lower manufacturing costs.
  • Increasing GHG emissions caused by a shift in energy production to out-of-state carbon-intensive power plants.
  • Increasing health problems stemming from greater reliance on residential wood stoves as a result of fuel switching by individuals seeking lower-cost heating options.
• An Environmental Impact Statement, not a determination of non-significance, was required.
• Ecology’s cost-benefit analysis was also flawed. Ecology improperly compared “state” costs with “global” benefits. Ecology also assumed artificially low compliance costs, given apparent restrictions on energy efficiency investments available to utilities, limitations on renewable energy credits for purchase by utilities, and the unproven and potentially inefficient and costly market for ERUs, which, over time, would depend more and more on emission reduction projects in Washington.

The Washington Environmental Council, coordinating with other environmental groups, has submitted briefing as an intervenor in favor of the regulation. The youth plaintiffs in an ongoing state court climate change lawsuit, Foster v. Department of Ecology, have also submitted an amicus brief. Although the youth plaintiffs have asserted in their separate litigation that the rule is inadequate, they nonetheless support Ecology’s authority, and putative responsibility, to issue a GHG reduction rule.

Foster v. Department of Ecology

The youth climate change lawsuit is on both appellate and trial court tracks. Ecology filed an appeal of the trial court’s decisions in November 2015 and May 2016. No. 75374-6-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I). The orders collectively required Ecology to develop a GHG regulation by the end of 2016. Ecology has argued that the trial court erred in granting post-judgment relief by requiring Ecology to have completed a rulemaking by the end of 2016 to address GHG emissions and by requiring Ecology to furnish a recommendation to the state legislature in 2017 concerning appropriate GHG limits, after previously determining that Ecology was on track to meet its obligations under the state air quality statutes, state constitution, and public trust doctrine. The youth plaintiffs have argued that Ecology’s appeal is moot since Ecology already carried out the lower court’s remedies. A continuing flurry of motions in the lower court has sharpened the mootness question even more. In a twist, the Association of Washington Business filed an amicus brief agreeing with Ecology’s request to vacate the May 2016 trial court order. However, Ecology has responded unfavorably to the Association’s purported attempt to “collaterally attack Ecology’s authority to adopt the Clean Air Rule.”

At the trial court level, the youth plaintiffs filed a motion in October 2016 asking the court to require Ecology to show why Ecology is not in contempt of the court’s November 2015 and May 2016 orders. Foster v. Dep’t of Ecology, No. 14-2-25295- 1 SEA (King Cty. Super. Ct.). The plaintiffs argued the orders required a regulation stringent enough to meet the state’s GHG reduction targets and, in the words of the plaintiffs, to “protect our children in the face of life-threatening climate pollution” based on “best available science,” a standard that allegedly had not been met by the Clean Air Rule. On December 16, 2016, plaintiffs also requested leave to file an amended petition for review. Three days later, the judge denied the motion for an order of contempt and sua sponte granted plaintiffs leave to file amended pleadings. This was followed by a couple of rounds of motions for reconsideration and court orders. As of this writing, the court was seeking input from the parties as to when permission from the court of appeals must be obtained before allowing plaintiffs to amend the pleadings to name the State of Washington and Governor Jay Inslee as additional defendants and to expand the claims to allege specific violations of the state constitution and public trust doctrine.

Holmquist v. United States

On January 31, 2017, several citizens brought a federal declaratory judgment action alleging that the preemption provisions in the 1995 Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) are unconstitutional. No. 2:17-cv-00046 (E.D. Wash. filed Jan. 31, 2017). The case stems from decisions by the Spokane city council to rescind multiple initiatives and one council resolution that would have restricted fossil fuel transportation by rail in the city based on federal preemption law. The plaintiffs assert two primary constitutional theories based on the “right to a liveable [sic] climate” and the “right of local community self-government.” The constitutional right to a healthy climate was informed by the decision in Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-cv-01517 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2016), recognizing a “constitutional right to ‘a climate system capable of sustaining human life,’” which was reported on in the prior issue of this newsletter. The United States filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on April 4, 2017. The response brief is due in May, and oral arguments are currently scheduled for July 12, 2017.

Enforcement Activity

On March 16, 2017, an individual living near the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site filed a citizen suit against asking the EPA administrator to act on a petition filed with EPA in opposition to proposed title V operating permits for the site. Green v. Pruitt, No. 4:17-cv-05034-SMJ (E.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017).

On February 21, 2017, the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) issued an opinion addressing lengthy challenges to a Reasonably Available Control Technology determination that established new furnace emission limits at a glass container-manufacturing plant in Seattle. Ardagh Glass, Inc. v. Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, PCHB No. 15-120 (Feb. 21, 2017). The new emission limits would have required application of add-on control technology. A RACT analysis includes technical and economic feasibility components. The PCHB agreed with much of Ecology’s analysis, including:

• Use of a “combined pollutant cost-effectiveness” evaluation.
• Use of an almost zero percent discount rate.
• The decision not to identify a maximum cost for feasible pollutant reductions.
• Use of a fabric baghouse and scrubber technology at a single glass container furnace in the country as evidence of technological feasibility.

But the PCHB roundly rejected parts of the analysis, such as an actual emissions baseline using data from a period before the facility had more recently reduced its emissions, which overestimated predicted emissions reductions, an estimate of demolition costs from an online calculator in the face of facility-specific evidence that demolition costs would be 200 times greater, and the failure to explain how specific calculations and cost reduction scenarios supported the determination. Importantly, the PCHB noted that the agency could consider factors such as the public health impacts of add-on controls as part of the economic feasibility analysis, but did not take a position as to whether the cost-effectiveness assessment should take into account potential-to-potential, actual-to-actual, or actual-to-potential reductions.

Legislative and Rulemaking Activity

A couple of climate change bills have been proposed in the Washington legislature. S.B. 5127 is a carbon tax bill. As initially proposed, tax revenue would be used to fund investments in clean energy, infrastructure, and education. H.B. 1144 would ratchet down the state’s GHG reduction limits in Wash. Rev. Code 70.235.020 for 2035 and 2050.

In addition, on February 7, 2017, Ecology announced a rulemaking to establish GHG emissions performance standards for power plants based on the 970 pounds of GHGs per megawatt hour standard identified by the Washington Department of Commerce as required by Wash. Rev. Code 80.80.050. In the preproposal statement of inquiry, Ecology indicated that this action “meets the intent of the state law to periodically update the standard if necessary.” The “changes will also simplify future updates to the standard” and will “align” the rule with “updates to Chapter 80.70 Carbon Dioxide Mitigation and Chapter 80.80 [of the Wash. Rev. Code] Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Baseload Electric Generation Facilities.”

The rule would apply to “new power plants, existing power plants that change ownership or undergo modification to increase power output, and power plants making new long-term financial commitments.” Ecology, Ch. 173-407 Wash. Admin. Code, Carbon Dioxide Mitigation Program, Greenhouse Gases Emissions Performance Std. & Sequestration Plans & Programs for Thermal Electric Generating Facilities—Overview of Rulemaking, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/ air/rules/wac173407/1612ov.htm (last accessed on Mar. 24, 2017). Stakeholder meetings are planned for April-June 2017 with a proposed rule anticipated for Fall 2017.

SSM Rulemaking

In response to EPA’s 2015 SIP Call asking states to update their SIPs to eliminate emission limitation exemptions during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) events, Ecology started working with stakeholders in November 2016 to develop a proposed rule to address the SSM event exemptions in Ecology’s current regulations. Ecology expects to issue a proposed rule sometime this spring.

The latest preproposal draft amendments, which also include revisions to opacity and source category regulations, create a detailed process for establishing case-by-case “alternate emission limits” for opacity, SO2, and PM emissions, and certain SIP approved emissions standards for “specific emission unit(s) during a clearly defined mode of operation” if requested by a facility. See Draft Preproposal Revisions to Wash. Admin. Code 173-400-082(1)(a), (a)(3). The alternate emission limits, if approved after an agency review and public comment process, would be included in a regulatory order. Id. at (a)(4)-(6). The draft amendments also contain revisions to state-only excess emissions reporting requirements and defenses and to public notice requirements for permitting activity. See Draft Preproposal Revisions to Wash. Admin. Code 173-400-108, -109, -171.

Air Quality Fee, Ch. 173-455 Wash Admin. Code, and General Regulations, Ch. 174- 400, Rulemaking

On February 6, 2017, Ecology formally announced that it is also undertaking revisions to its air quality fee scheme to “better align fees with costs” and to more “equitably distribute fees across all registered sources.” See Preproposal Statement of Inquiry (Feb. 6, 2017). Ecology expects to hold stakeholder meetings this spring and to propose a rule in August 2017. Ecology, Ch. 173-455 Wash. Admin. Code, Air Quality Fee Rule, ch. 173-400 Wash. Admin. Code, Gen. Regs. for Air Pollution Sources—Timeline for Rulemaking (last accessed Mar. 24, 2017).

EPA Regulatory Approvals

On January 19, 2017, EPA proposed to approve SIP revisions incorporating a range of updated air quality regulations from the Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA). See 82 Fed. Reg. 6413 (Jan. 19, 2017). SWCAA implements Ecology’s air regulations “except where the Agency has adopted corresponding provisions” which “apply in lieu of the corresponding WAC provisions.” Id. at 6414. The comment period for the proposed approvals closed on February 21, 2017. Id. at 6413.

On March 22, 2017, EPA proposed to approve SIP revisions related to updated air quality regulations administered by the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), which has jurisdiction over “major energy facilities” in the state. See 82 Fed. Reg. 14,648–49 (Mar. 22, 2017). EFSEC has, for the most part, just adopted Ecology’s regulations by reference. Id. Some EFSEC regulations will not be approved in this SIP revision because they are inconsistent with federal court decisions made after the regulations were updated. Id. at 14,650. In addition, EPA proposes to grant EFSEC authority to administer the PSD program for facilities with “existing PSD permits issued by the EPA.” Id. at 14,653. EPA will retain a federal implementation plan to “issue partial PSD permits to ensure that major sources . . . have the means to satisfy the CAA construction permit requirements for GHG . . . emissions from . . . combustion of biomass,” which EFSEC does not regulate except for reporting purposes. Id.

Oregon

Legislative Activity—Regulating Emissions from CAFOs

Proposed Senate Bill 197 (SB 197) is working its way through the Oregon state legislature. It would enact requirements for regulating air contaminant emissions from dairy concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). SB 197 is backed by environmental interests, and opposed by the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association. SB 197 would direct the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to adopt by rule a program for regulating air emissions from dairy CAFOs.

Until 2007, Oregon law exempted agricultural operations from air quality regulations with the exception of field burning in the Willamette Valley. In 2005, environmental groups petitioned EPA to revoke its approval of Oregon’s SIP. The groups asserted that the SIP was deficient because state law exempted from regulation emissions from major agricultural sources, including CAFOs. In response to the petition, Senate Bill 235 (SB 235) was adopted to direct Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to enter into a memorandum of understanding in order to evaluate federal CAA requirements applicable to agriculture. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 468A.790. SB 235 also established a Task Force on Dairy Air Quality and directed it to study the emissions from CAFOs. The Task Force delivered its report in July 2008, recommending that the state’s EQC work with Oregon DEQ and ODA to adopt rules to implement a proposed “Oregon Dairy Air Emissions Program” based upon a set of guiding principles and starting as a voluntary program.

Proposed SB 197 would authorize Oregon EQC and ODA to enter into a memorandum of understanding providing for ODA to operate a program regulating air contaminant emissions from dairy CAFOs. ODA would be authorized to perform the functions of the Oregon EQC or DEQ, including inspections of CAFOs for purposes of investigating sources of emissions. SB 197 would provide ODA with the ability to access to pertinent records of CAFOs, including but not limited to blueprints or operating plans. Provisions authorizing the program would become operative on January 1, 2019.

Regulatory Activity —Oregon Draft Air Toxics Rulemaking Framework

On March 21, 2017, Oregon DEQ and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published a draft “Proposed Framework for Cleaner Air Oregon.” The framework outlines proposed options for regulating air toxics in Oregon through the creation of a health-risk based permitting program. The proposed framework will be used to draft new regulations, which will be released for public comment later this summer.

The proposed draft framework would apply to permitted and unpermitted new, modified, and existing sources. Under the program, DEQ would set limits on whole-facility emissions as well as emissions from new emissions units. DEQ is seeking comment on proposed categorical exemptions from the program. Such exemptions would be based on a determination of whether toxic air pollutants are emitted from a piece of equipment or process. Oregon DEQ and OHA intend to evaluate whether DEQ’s title V categorically insignificant activities list is appropriate to use for toxic air pollutants. Examples of categorical exemptions could include small natural gas boilers, spray coating and associated drying equipment used exclusively for educational purposes in educational institutions, office activities, and food service activities. Under the program, Oregon DEQ and OHA would seek to incorporate requirements based on the air toxics regulatory programs in California and Washington.

EPA Regulatory Approval

On March 22, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule partially approving and partially disapproving changes to Oregon’s SIP submitted on April 22, 2015. 82 Fed. Reg. 14,654 (Mar. 22, 2017). The changes relate to the criteria pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS (CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2 ).

On April 22, 2015, the Oregon DEQ submitted significant revisions to the Oregon SIP. Oregon made changes to 26 Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) divisions within chapter 340, and two source sampling and monitoring manuals related to the rules. 

Oregon DEQ made substantive changes to the definition of “adjacent” at OAR 340-200-0020(4). The definition was narrowed by limiting the use of the defined term, “interdependent facilities that are nearby to each other,” to its use in the “major source” definition at OAR 340-200-0020(91), and in the air contaminant discharge permit program at OAR 340-216-0070. In other places where the term “adjacent” is used, Oregon DEQ’s response to comments document indicates that DEQ intends to use the dictionary definition.

Oregon DEQ revised the term “categorically insignificant activities” at OAR 340-200-0020(23) in several respects. One key revision provides that insignificant activity emissions must be included in determining whether a source is a “federal major source” (OAR 340-200-0020(66)) or a “major modification” (OAR 340-224-0025(2)(a)(B)) subject to federal major New Source Review.

In its notice, EPA is not proposing to approve certain revised provisions submitted by Oregon DEQ, “because they are inconsistent with [Clean Air Act] requirements, or because they are inappropriate for SIP approval under section 110, title I of the CAA.” 82 Fed. Reg. at 14,670. Revisions not approved by EPA include:

• Provisions related to compliance schedules.
• Stationary Source Plant Site Emission Limits (hazardous air pollutants).
• NSR (PM2.5 inter-pollutant offset ratios).
• Emission Standards for Wood Products Industries (total reduced sulfur and odor).

Idaho

Regulatory Activity—Crop Residue Burning

The State of Idaho recently approved significant changes to the air quality components of its Crop Residue Burning (CRB) program. Idaho crop growers burn between 35,000 and 50,000 acres between March and September every year. Under the CRB program, growers must register with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and pay a per-acre fee prior to burning croplands after harvest.

Historically, Idaho prohibited crop residue burning if any Clean Air Act criteria pollutant was projected by DEQ to exceed 75 percent of its respective NAAQS. Crop residue burning principally implicates the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. After EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone in 2015, Idaho DEQ estimated that available crop residue burn days would be reduced by 33–50 percent.

In March 2017, with support from the state legislature, Idaho DEQ issued a regulation that temporarily allows the agency to continue using the 2008 Ozone NAAQS for purposes of CRB approvals. That rule is designed to avoid economic hardship for growers during the 2017 crop residue burning season, and it will be effective until February 28, 2018. Idaho DEQ also finalized a separate regulation that beginning in the 2018 burn season will allow crop residue burning as long as ozone is not projected to exceed 90 percent of the current ozone NAAQS. Idaho DEQ has submitted this regulation to EPA as a SIP revision, and it expects approval prior to the 2018 burn season.

Crop residue burning in Idaho has been the source of significant litigation in the past. See Safe Air for Everyone v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007). The CRB program grew out of a settlement agreement resulting from this past litigation. It remains to be seen whether environmental and health advocacy organizations will file legal challenges to the recent program modifications.

Regulatory Activity—Cache Valley

PM2.5 Regulation On January 4, 2017, EPA announced final action on its previously proposed rule partially approving and partially disapproving Idaho’s attainment plan for the Cache Valley PM2.5 nonattainment area. 82 Fed. Reg. 729 (Jan. 4, 2017) (see prior discussion in vol. 20, no. 2 of this publication). The final rule was to take effect on February 3. Id.

On January 26, however, EPA delayed the effective date of its final Cache Valley action until March 21, 2017. 82 Fed. Reg. 8499 (Jan. 26, 2017). This delay was prompted by a January 20 regulatory freeze initiated by the Trump administration. Id. EPA later extended its delay of final action on the Cache Valley nonattainment area until April 20. 82 Fed. Reg. 14,463 (Mar. 21, 2017).

On March 30, EPA again proposed to delay the effective date of this action “for up to 90 days.” 92 Fed. Reg. 15,683 (Mar. 30, 2017). The agency is still considering whether to conduct a substantive review of its prior action regarding Idaho’s attainment plan. See id. If no substantive review is undertaken, the prior action “will become effective no later than July 19, 2017.” Id. EPA is obligated to take some final action on Idaho’s attainment plan for its portion of the Cache Valley area under the terms of a consent decree entered on June 2, 2016, by a federal judge in California. See N.D. Cal. Dkt. No. 4:15-cv-4663-SBA. The original deadline for final action by EPA, under the consent decree, was December 8, 2016. On November 22, 2016, that deadline was extended by stipulation to January 3, 2017. EPA’s obligations under the same consent decree have since been extended further, also by stipulation, to September 1, 2017.

Separately, EPA has not yet taken action on its December 16, 2016, proposal to find that Idaho failed to attain compliance with the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Cache Valley nonattainment area by the attainment date of December 31, 2015. See 81 Fed. Reg. 91,088 (Dec. 16, 2016). If finalized, EPA’s proposed finding of nonattainment would result in reclassification of the nonattainment area, by operation of law, from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment. Given the recent change in administration and EPA leadership, however, it remains to be seen whether (or when) EPA’s proposed finding will be finalized as written.

On March 13, 2017, EPA announced the award of a $2.5 million Clean Air Act Targeted Airshed grant to Idaho DEQ. These grant funds will be used to reduce air pollution and increase the air quality in the Cache Valley region.

Alaska

Fairbanks North Star Borough Nonattainment Area

On January 3, 2017, EPA published notice of a proposed consent decree to resolve an October 11, 2016, lawsuit filed against the agency by Citizens for Clean Air and the Sierra Club. 82 Fed. Reg. 116 (Jan. 3, 2017). The plaintiffs in that suit requested an order requiring EPA to determine whether the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) is in the attainment of the 2006 24-Hour NAAQS for PM2.5. See W.D. Wash. Dkt. No. 2:16-cv-01594-RAJ.

Presumably prompted by the October 11 lawsuit, EPA proposed on December 16, 2016, to find that the FNSB has not achieved compliance with the NAAQS. 81 Fed. Reg. 91,088 (Dec. 16, 2016). Under the proposed consent decree announced on January 3, EPA would be required to finalize its determination by April 28, 2017. A final EPA determination that the FNSB has not attained compliance with the NAAQS would, by operation of law, require designation of the borough as a “serious” nonattainment area for fine particulate matter. As of this writing, EPA has not finalized its determination, and the District Court for the Western District of Washington has not signed and entered the proposed consent decree. But Alaska regulators have already proposed tighter wood-burning restrictions to take effect upon redesignation of the FNSB to “serious” nonattainment for PM2.5, including a mandatory point-of-sale woodstove change-out requirement for real estate transactions.

Meanwhile, on February 2, 2017, EPA proposed to approve SIP revisions submitted by the State of Alaska to address compliance with the 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 in the FNSB. 82 Fed. Reg. 9035 (Feb. 2, 2017). EPA’s proposed action on the Alaska SIP submission was required under a consent decree that resolved a separate lawsuit filed in 2016 by Citizens for Clean Air and the Sierra Club. The primary strategy of Alaska’s SIP revisions is to reduce particulate emissions from residential wood combustion for home heating. Id. at 9037. These SIP submissions do not address additional requirements that may be imposed upon EPA’s pending redesignation of the FNSB from “moderate” to “serious” nonattainment. However, the approved SIP submissions do include contingency measures that are already expected to be implemented upon that re-designation.

On March 13, EPA announced the award of a $2.5 million grant to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for purposes of improving air quality in the FNSB. The Clean Air Act Targeted Airshed grant will be used for a wood stove change-out program designed to reduce fine particulate pollution in the borough.

Potential Nonattainment Designation for Butte

Outside the FNSB, the Butte area of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, northeast of Anchorage, has also experienced high levels of fine particulate pollution in recent years. Data from 2014 and 2015 exceeded the 2006 24-Hour NAAQS for PM2.5, leading to concern that this area would require a nonattainment designation by EPA. Preliminary data for 2016, however, shows a drop in PM2.5 below the NAAQS.

Dutch Harbor Settlement

On April 20, 2017, EPA announced a significant settlement with a Dutch Harbor seafood processor for Clean Air Act violations related to three large diesel generators. The processor voluntarily reported to EPA that several of its employees had disengaged required pollution control technology, and falsified records to conceal their actions, for a two-year period beginning in 2009. The employees pled guilty to criminal charges for these actions in 2014. Operation of the generators without required controls for NOx emissions violated the processor’s existing title I and title V permits. These operations also violated a prior consent decree between the processor and EPA for earlier Clean Air Act violations involving the same equipment. Under the new consent decree, the processor agreed to pay $730,000 for violations of the prior consent decree, as well as $570,000 for new Clean Air Act violations. Of civil penalties totaling $1.3 million, the processor is to pay $228,000 to the State of Alaska. The processor also agreed to spend nearly $2 million more on air pollution reduction and environmental mitigation projects.

©2017. Published in Air Quality Committee Newsletter, Vol. 20, No. 5, August 2017, by the American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved.