Environmental Management Commission 1993 2011 Presentations/2011-12-08/Morea… · Environmental...
Transcript of Environmental Management Commission 1993 2011 Presentations/2011-12-08/Morea… · Environmental...
Environmental Management Commission ‐1993‐2011
Reflections on Several Major Actionsand Roles of Commissioners
David H. MoreauProfessor of Water and Environmental Resource
Planning and EngineeringUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Member, EMC since 1993Chairman 1993‐2008
Environmental Management Commission:
Who it is and what it doesNCGS Chapter 143B‐282 Part 4
Membership – 19
• 13 members appointed by Governor to six‐year terms; three appointed by Speaker of House and three by President Pro‐tempore of the Senate, each to two‐year terms
• Special qualifications for some of Governor’s appointees – physician, public health, agriculture, registered engineer, wildlife conservation,, groundwater, industrial manufacturing, local government, air quality, ecological sciences
EMC AUTHORITY• Only those powers granted by General Assembly and subject to Administrative Procedures Act and other statues governing state officials
• Quasi‐Legislative Rulemaking – rule making for procedures and standards for air, water, ground water, water resources and UST programs
• Quasi Judicial – civil penalty remissions; issue declaratory rulings; grant variances from rules; contested NPDES cases.
• Administrative – issue permits/delegate authority to do so.
EMC AUTHORITY (continued)
• Direct investigations necessary to support duties;
• Delegate powers to its members, the Sec. or staff
• Conduct public hearings/delegate power to do so;
• Institute lawsuits in Superior Court to enjoin the violation of and enforce the statutes and rules;
• Issue special orders and consent orders to persons responsible for causing pollution
Selected Issues Addressed by the Environmental Management
Commission 1993‐2008
Water Quality and Groundwater
• Implementation of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Act
• Groundwater standards
• CAFO standards
• Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Water Strategy
• Revision of Tar‐Pamlico NSW Strategy
• Protection of wetlands
• Establishment of ecosystem restoration program
• Phase I and Phase II stormwater regulations
• Coastal stormwater regulations
• Goose Creek Endangered Species Protection
• Jordan Lake and Falls Lake Rules
Water Resources
• Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
• Randleman Reservoir – Reclassification and IBT
• Allocation of Storage in Jordan Reservoir
• Cary‐Apex Interbasin Transfer
• Kannapolis‐Concord Interbasin Transfers
• Water conservation standards
Air Quality ‐ Ozone • 1995‐1997 Ozone Transport Assessment Group/Sec 126
Petition
• July 1997 Revision of standard for ozone from 120 parts per billion over one hour standard to 80 parts per billion over 8 hours
• Revision of ozone standard in 2008
• Revision of the State Implementation Plan to address caps on nitrogen oxides
– Clean Smokestacks
– Clear Air Interstate Rule and revision to address court action that abolished the CAIR rule
– Allocation of cap to individual permitees
• Revisions to the New Source Performance Standards
Other Air Quality
• Mercury rule – to be revised as a result of court action abolishing this rule
• Issues involving federal agency review of permits involving PSD for Class I areas
• Hundreds of technical and minor corrections
2007 ‐ SB 3 renewable energy ‐amended G.S. Sec. 143B‐282(a)(6)
“(6) The (EMC) Commission may establish a procedure for evaluating renewable energy technologies that are, or are proposed to be, employed as part of a renewable energy facility, as defined in G.S. 62‐133.7; establish standards to ensure that renewable energy technologies do not harm the environment, natural resources, cultural resources, or public health, safety, or welfare of the State; and, to the extent thatthere is not an environmental regulatory program, establish an environmental regulatory program to implement these protective standards."
Selected Issues with Wide Spectrum of Interests
• CAFO regulations
• Water Supply Watershed Protection
• Nutrient Sensitive Strategies – Neuse, Tar‐Pamlico, Jordan, Falls, Randleman
• Stormwater management
• Phase II and Jordan (Coastal pre‐1993)
• Water Allocation
Neuse River BasinLand Area = 5,600 sq.mi.Water Area = 633 sq.mi.
Population in 1990 about 1.0 million
Swift Cr.
Crabtree Cr.
(Johnston Co.)
Key provisions in NSW Strategy
• Point source trading – one of several national models
• Mandatory reductions on agricultural sources– a first in NC among the first in the US
– Effectiveness subject to considerable uncertainty
Options for Point Sources to reduce nitrogen delivered to estuary by 30 percent
• Uniform moderate treatment (5‐6 mg/L)– Cost = $ 2,865,000/yr– Remove 593,000 lb/yr
• Uniform stringent treatment (3.6 mg/L)– Cost = $ 6,551,000/yr– Remove 678,000 lb/yr
• Least cost attainable through trading– Cost = $ 780,000/yr– Remove 335,000 lb/yr ($2.33/lb)
Issues in Trading
• Organizational arrangements ‐ efficiency, authority
• Initial allocation of allowances
• Who is to be held accountable (individual dischargers or coalition of participants)?
• What happens if a discharger chooses not to participate in coalition?
Water Allocation
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
Water Use Act of 1967 – NCGS § 143‐215.11
• Cretaceous Zones: Declining Water Level, Dewatering, and Salt Water Encroachment
• Approved Base Rate (ABR)• Water users required to reduce withdrawals between 2002 and 2018 by 30 to 75%, in three phases, from ABR
Interbasin Transfers • A New Reality in North Carolina
• Virginia Beach
• Jordan Lake and growth of Triangle
• Law– Interbasin Transfer Act of 1993
– Regulation of Surface Water Transfers 2007
– requires certain findings before certificate can be granted for transfers over 2 MGD
• Cases:– Cary‐Apex
– Piedmont Triad
– Kannapolis‐Concord
Jordan Lake Allocation and Interbasin Transfer to Cary and Apex
Haw River
Neuse River Basin
Cape FearRiver
Deep River
Cape FearRiver Basin
Chapel Hill
Durham
Raleigh
Cary
Neuse RiverFalls
Lake
Eno River
Haw River
JordanLake
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
NEUSE RIVER BASIN
16 MGD
Portions of Catawba‐Broad
andYadkin‐Pee DeeRiver Basins
10 MGD
Interbasin Transfer ‐ Catawba to Rocky River(Kannapolis‐Concord)
Rocky River
YadkinRiver
Catawba River
Rocky River Basin
Catawba River Basin
South Carolina
South Carolina
Population DensityPersons/sq.mi.
CHARLOTTE
Concord
Kannapolis
Interbasin Transfer to Kannapolis and Concord
10 MGD
LakeNorman
Air QualityOzone and Mercury
Federal Rules
Federal Courts State Rules
State statute –Clean Smokestackes
Mercury Rule – Cap and Trade versus Maximum Achievable Technology
• In 2000, EPA proposed regulation as HAP under Sec 112
• 2005, the EPA reversed itself and proposed the Clean Air Mercury Rule (“CAMR”) under Section 111 of the CAA (NSPS)
• CAMR established a cap‐and‐trade program– Small cap allocated to North Carolina – equivalent to 90 %
reduction
– Strong opposition to trade provisions
– Negotiations
• Parties ‐ Energy companies and So. Envr. Law Ctr
• Agreement – Achieve 90% reduction; use interstate trading only if technology could not achieve 90%
Mercury MACT for Power Plants• Court over‐turned EPA decision to regulate under Section 111
• Terms of consent decree: EPA must propose MACT standards by 3/16/2011 and sign final 11/16/2011.
• 2009 proposed rule: according to EPA
– Affects 1,350 coal/oil‐fired units at 525 power plants
– Hg reduced by 91 percent and, co‐benefit of SO2 by 55 %
• Status
– Reviewed by OMB Feb 2011
– Public meetings and comment periods have closed
– Final version sent to OMB mid‐Oct 2011
– Publication anticipated Dec. 2011
Influences on the Commission
Influences on the Commission
• Functions are not subject to the approval, review, or control of the Secretary or Governor
• Rules are subject to review by RRC and General Assembly• Influence through appointments, statutes, and powers of
persuasion• Members are not isolated from lobbying except on quasi‐
judicial matters• Strict control on gifts from lobbyist• With a few exceptions, commissioners are generally not
skilled at political organization and deal making• Generally, commissioners speak as individuals for
themselves and interests they represent
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION LAW 2011‐398 SENATE BILL 781
AN ACT TO INCREASE REGULATORY EFFICIENCY IN ORDER TO BALANCE JOB CREATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.
• Restrictions of scope of rulemaking; given general exceptions, impact is uncertain
• Additional requirements in rulemaking process • Change to quasi‐judicial process for contested cases – ALJ makes final agency decision.