Blogs | Environmental and Energy Law Solutions

Facilities that own and operate air emissions sources in the State of Missouri, such as manufacturing plants, chemical plants, and similar industrial air sources, will want to take note of recent proposed changes to the notification obligations involving certain excess emission events.

After years of studies, Congressional pressure, and on-the-ground experience with the American Burying Beetle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed downgrading the beetle’s status from “Endangered” to “Threatened.” In addition to this move, Fish and Wildlife has proposed a rule that would tailor protections that are necessary for the beetle to recover under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act.

The Department of the Interior recently announced six new Records of Decision that amend Resource Management Plans for the Greater Sage-Grouse.

Mitigation bank credits may become more readily available to builders, developers and other permittees following new guidance issued in late February.  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Regulatory Guidance Letter 19-01, developed in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on February 22, 2019. (Available here)

Lenders, borrowers, purchasers, sellers, and even contractors sometimes get annoyed with environmental lawyers when we insist on reviewing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) draft reports, looking at the underlying regulatory files, checking title reports, real property records, and contract terms, counting days to make sure that the Phase I report is not stale or expired at closing, and documenting which parties do, should, or do not have reliance rights under that report.   

On January 23, 2019, Wildgrass Oil and Gas Committee (reportedly an anti-fracking group but also an organization that includes mineral owners in the Wildgrass subdivision in Broomfield, Colorado), filed suit in federal court in Denver challenging, on federal constitutional grounds, that portion of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act (C.R.S. 34-60-116) (the “Act”) that allows the Commission to “force pool” the development of oil and gas resources.

There are several online resources available to track the regulatory activities of the current federal administration, including various federal government agency websites.  The two sites which I and others often turn to for comprehensive and easy-to-use online access for tracking the current state of federal deregulatory efforts are the sites produced and maintained by the law schools at Harvard College and New York University.

In a unanimous decision which resolved more than five years of dispute, the Colorado Supreme Court on January 14, 2019 upheld the decision of the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission (COGCC) which had refused to engage in rulemaking proposed by environmental groups. Led by the so-called teenage activist Xiuhtezcatl (pronounced Shoe-Tez-Caht) Martinez, the activists proposed a rule that would have conditioned all new oil and gas development on a finding of no cumulative adverse impacts to public health and the environment.  Responding to the rulemaking petition which was originally submitted in 2013, the COGCC said the rulemaking was beyond its statutory authority; on appeal, the district court agreed with the agency; and then the Court of Appeals, in a split decision, reversed.