Blog

Our news

  • Sunoco vs Honolulu: implications of disinformation campaigns by big oil

    June 28th 2024

    By Aaron Piehl

    Sunoco vs Honolulu is a prime example of corporate action conflicting with environmental policy, and gives us insight onto its implications in the court system. In 2020, the city and county of Honolulu, backed by the Honolulu board of water supply, sued Sunoco, an oil distributer, along with their affiliated oil companies (ie- Shell, Chevron, and Conoco Phillips). The issue was presented to the Hawaii state court, whom found Honolulu’s actions were not backed by federal law. The Clean Air Act allows for state governments to pass policy regarding carbon emissions, however it restricts their action for interstate or international environmental issues. This directly conflicted with Honolulu’s actions regarding their regulation of Sunoco. So the question was simple, ” Does federal law preempt state-law claims alleging cross-border pollution from greenhouse gases?” The Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief, which is essentially a peer reviewed and analyzed document explaining the case, but must be filed by a group unaffiliated with the case itself (basically the legal equivalent to in second grade when someone doesn’t know the answer to a question, and they get someone else to ask the teacher for them). They explain that the case is actually quite similar to Native American tribal land litigation, where in individual states aren’t able to regulate tribal land borders, due to the fact they are registered through the national government since Washington v Colville. Since tribal borders often cross states, they aren’t able to be overseen by state governments. And under the same logic, the state governments can’t regulate carbon emissions, since they also cross state borders. Insane analogy, but, they’re not wrong. The city of Honolulu responded that due to a lack of federal action, they city had to take action as an act of public safety. In a similar case of New York v Chevron, they found that states could not hold corporations liable based on carbon emissions ONLY IF the corporations properly disclosed the risks involved to the necessary authorities. That brings us to May 1st of this year, where the city of Honolulu filed a ‘Writ of Certiorari’ to appeal the state court decision. Just 2 weeks ago, the Supreme court invited the Solicitor General to introduce the case. The case largely rests on whether the corporate sponsored disinformation campaign by fossil fuel companies qualifies as knowingly misleading the public. As the name ‘disinformation campaign’ implies, it logically does. Industry lobbyists like API spend billions of dollars every year to disavow science proving the relationship between climate change and greenhouse gas predictions. Infact, in 2009 the ‘Waxman-Markey’ bill failed pretty much entirely because of that. This Obama lead iniative would cap the amount of carbon a company could release free of charge, and any nation that produced less would receive rebates from the government. Industry leaders, like the API, worked directly with the ‘tea party republican block’ to ensure the bills failing. Why? Because it hurt large oil and gas companies that were responsible for significantly larger carbon emissions, meaning their small company counterparts would receive a competitive advantage when they get rebates for emitting less CO2. That brings us to today, where Sunoco is recycling (no pun intended) the same arguments that API gave us 15 years ago. In Pennsylvania, their construction of the East Mariner pipeline spilled over 780,000 gallons of waste into Raystown lake. But, none of these “accidents” EVER got reported to the state. They actively invested in 16 horizontal drilling sites, despite it being proven to contaminate a larger area of ground water. Meanwhile the Open Secrets foundation found that Sunoco has been investing half a million in lobbying iniatives ever since discussion opened up for anti-horizontal drilling legislation in Pennsylvania and Hawaii. So, even congress is acquiescing to big oil, its important that we don’t. Stay informed, and see y’allnext week

    By the way, if you enjoyed this weeks article, you can submit your own! Contact us or submit an article in the about us, and you can publish your own works here as well!

  • The Chevron Doctrine

    July 5th 2024

    By Aaron Piehl

    In 1984, the supreme court made a landmark decision, that the EPA (and by proxy the other regulatory beurocratic bodies) had the legal authority to interpret legislation in their field. Last week, that precedent, nearly half a century old, has been overturned. The regulatory framework that governs America, has been flipped on its head. Happy Fourth of July everyone!!! The doctrine goes back to the 6-3 decision in the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In that decision, the court stated that in a dispute over legislative interpretation, the regulatory body in charge of enforcing the legislation would have the ability to settle disputes, so long as it was reasonable. Since then, the decision has been sited by federal courts over 18,000 times. While initially praised by conservatives for affirming the Reagan-era EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act, which relaxed emissions regulations, the Chevron decision later became a focal point for critics aiming to reduce the influence of federal agencies. These critics argued that courts, rather than administrative bodies, should determine the interpretation of laws. Despite earlier refusals, including appeals from a lawyer involved in previous cases, the justices agreed last year to review challenges to a National Marine Fisheries Service rule. This rule required the herring industry to cover costs, amounting to an estimated $710 per day, for onboard observers tasked with data collection and monitoring to prevent overfishing. The agency ended the monitoring program in 2023, and reimbursed fisheries for the cost. The Viktor Wembanyama of the supreme court, Chief Justice Roberts, contended that the chevron decision was at odds with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that sets out the procedures that federal agencies must follow as well as instructions for courts to review actions by those agencies. Kagan argued that overturning the Chevron doctrine has caused a significant disruption in the legal system. She also challenged the majority’s assertion that eliminating Chevron would bring clarity to judicial review of agency interpretations. Instead of reassurance about giving agency interpretations “respect” in the future, she suggested that disputes over what “respect” entails will likely replace current debates over ambiguity. She also doubted the majority’s claim that their decision wouldn’t undermine previous rulings that relied on Chevron to support agency actions, suggesting that courts can always find a “special justification” to overturn past decisions, as exemplified in the current opinion. In a broader critique, Kagan accused her fellow justices of seizing judicial authority. She criticized the court for unilaterally taking control of every unresolved issue related to regulatory law, regardless of its complexity or policy implications (+999 aura).

    By the way, if you enjoyed this weeks article, you can submit your own! Contact us or submit an article in the about us, and you can publish your own works here as well!

  • Ohio V. EPA

    July 16th 2024

    By Aaron Piehl

    Sorry for the late post everyone, myself, and many other people in Texas have been without power due to Hurricane Berryl. Don’t worry, we’ll make a post about it next week. But for today, we’ll be going over another supreme court case interacting with EPA decision making. Specifically, Ohio v EPA.

    In a 5-4 decision during the week of June 23, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency that if a federal agency fails to adequately address comments raised during the rulemaking process, the final rule can be deemed unlawful. The case involved the EPA’s rulemaking under the Clean Air Act, which sets air pollutant standards and requires states to adopt corresponding state implementation plans (SIPs). If a state’s SIP is noncompliant, the EPA can impose a federal implementation plan (FIP), which must be open to public comment.

    In 2015, the EPA revised air-quality standards, requiring states to submit new SIPs. When 23 states were found noncompliant, the EPA proposed a FIP imposing a blanket plan on all 23 states. During the public comment period, concerns were raised about the FIP’s effectiveness if fewer than all 23 states participated. The EPA’s final FIP included a broad severability provision, stating the plan would continue for remaining states if any dropped out, but did not address the specific concerns raised.

    The FIP plan largely focused on limiting Nitrogen Oxide and Ozone emissions in order to curb over pollution. Specifically, it introduced regulations on NOx emissions from coal powered electric generating units or EGUs. These units are mainly used in the production of steel, concrete, and ferroalloys, aka the ‘heavy industries’. The FIP introduced a 4lb/per ton restriction on NOx emissions for wet concrete production, and 7lb/per ton for glass furnaces.

    The problem being that manufacturers didn’t have the capacity to produce at those levels without massively increasing prices. Estimates write that it would cost an extra 400 dollars per ton on concrete to produce at the 4lb/per ton regulation. So either the costs get pushed to consumers or the companies go under.

    Petitioners, including several states and private parties, challenged the FIP as arbitrary and capricious due to the lack of a reasoned explanation. After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a stay, the case went to the Supreme Court. The Court considered four factors for granting a stay, focusing on the likelihood of the petitioners’ success. The majority found that the EPA failed to reasonably explain the FIP and adequately address the public comments, making the petitioners likely to succeed on the merits. Negative aura activities.

    The ruling highlighted that federal agencies must provide thorough responses to public comments during rulemaking. While the decision temporarily stayed the FIP pending further review, it underscored the necessity for agencies to offer clear, reasoned explanations for their rules, especially when significant concerns are raised during the public comment period.

    In Gorsuch’s opinion paper, he referred to the pollutants as “Nitrous oxide” 5 times… A quick google search would reveal that Nitrous Oxide is laughing gas, and the paper meant to say, “Nitrogen oxide.” It’s a tragedy that the Trump Era Justices neglected to take AP Chem…

    By the way, if you enjoyed this week’s article, you can submit your own! Contact us or submit an article in the about us, and you can publish your own works here as well!