The document summarizes a presentation on emerging issues in federal permitting for energy projects. It discusses challenges with assessing the environmental impacts of transmission lines under NEPA when generation and transmission facilities have different owners. It also addresses uncertainties caused by endangered species listing decisions. Recent regulatory developments discussed include amendments to incidental take permitting and the waters of the United States rule. The presentation concludes with updates on EPA's greenhouse gas rules and new CEQ guidance on climate change reviews and programmatic NEPA analyses.

1. Environmental Issues in Federal Permitting
for Energy Projects
Winston & Strawn LLP
July 14, 2015

2. Today’s eLunch Presenters
Tyson Smith
Energy
San Francisco
TRSmith@winston.com
Stephanie Sebor
Environmental
Chicago
SSebor@winston.com
Eleni Kouimelis
Environmental
Chicago
EKouimel@winston.com
2

3. Agenda
• Brief Introduction
• Emerging Issues in Energy Project Development
• Rethinking Transmission under NEPA
• Mitigating ESA Listing Decision Uncertainty
• Environmental Regulatory Developments
• Recent Amendments to Incidental Take Statement Regulations
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act Incidental Take Permitting Program
• Waters of the United States Rule
• Update on EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Rulemakings
• CEQ Issuance of NEPA Guidance Documents
3

4. Emerging Issues in Energy Project
Development

5. Energy Project Development
5
Project
Approvals
Clean
Water
Act
Clean Air
Act
NEPA
ESA
NHPA
State
CPCN
Project
Approvers
EPA/State
EPA
Corps of
Engin’rs
Fed. Land
Agencies
Other
Fed.
Agencies
ISOs
State Utility
Commission

6. What Was Old Is New Again…
• Transmission corridor development and NEPA was a “hot topic” in
the 1970s and 1980s
• Coextensive with period of large power generation station construction
• Along with highway construction, developed a large body of law
addressing “connected actions” and “segmentation”
• Involved applicants for permits that were responsible for siting,
constructing, and operating the transmission lines and the generation
facility
• Significant changes in electricity system since that time
• De-regulation and the rise of merchant generation
• Separation of generation and transmission systems
• Major advances in renewable energy development
• Result: Caselaw does not necessarily match current reality
6

7. Fermi 3 Project
• DTE’s proposed 1600 MW new nuclear project in Michigan at site
of existing Fermi 2 reactor
• New offsite transmission lines would be owned and operated by
ITCTransmission
• DTE has no control over the siting, design, or operation of offsite
transmission lines
• Final transmission route determined in a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity from the Michigan Public Service
Commission
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s FEIS
• Explains that ITCTransmission has not formally announced a route for
a new offsite transmission line serving Fermi 3
• Relied on publicly-available information and reasonable expectations
regarding configurations that ITCTransmission would use based on
standard industry practice
7

8. • Under 40 CFR 1508.25,
connected actions:
• Automatically trigger other
actions requiring EIS
• Cannot or will not proceed
unless other actions are taken
previously or simultaneously
• Are interdependent parts of a
larger action and depend on
the larger action for their
justification
8
Application to New Paradigm

9. 9
Application to New Paradigm
• Improper segmentation factors:
• Whether there is a proposed
action;
• Whether the actions have
independent utility; and
• Whether there is sufficient federal
control and responsibility.

10. Effects of ESA Listing Decisions
• Federal permitting agency is not the same as the responsible
agency under the ESA
• Scope and timing of ESA listing decisions may be uncertain
• Geographic scope of affected species
• Timing of final decisions
• Creates substantial licensing/permitting uncertainty
• Agencies hesitant to give appearance of rushing permit decision
prior to listing decision
• Permitting agency must coordinate with USFWS after listing decision
• Delay adversely affects project developer
• Regulatory uncertainty (timing of project start)
• Economic impacts (financing, cost of construction)
10

11. Geographic Range
11

12. Timing of ESA Decisions
• Practical
• Informal coordination with USFWS
to inform them of schedule issues
• Pre-staged internal assessments if
species is listed
• Legal
• If species not yet listed, then
consultation not required
• If “no effect,” then consultation not
required
• Timing of listing v. effective date
• Focus only on actions “authorized”
by Federal agency
• Consider license/permit conditions
12
Red Knot
Proposed Listing as “Threatened” Sept. 13, 2013
Reopening Comment Period April 4, 2014
Reopening Comment Period May 14, 2014
Final Listing Decision (Target) Sept. 13, 2014
Final Listing Decision (Actual) Dec. 11, 2014
Northern Long-Eared Bat
Proposed Listing Oct. 2, 2013
Extension of Listing Decision June 30, 2014
Reopening Comment Period Nov. 18, 2014
Final Listing Decision (Actual) April 2, 2015
End of Comment Period on 4(d) Rule July 1, 2015
Greater Sage Grouse
Listing Warranted, but Precluded Mar. 5, 2010
Status Review Sept. 1, 2015

13. Environmental Regulatory Developments

14. • On May 1, 2015, FWS and National Marine Fisheries
Services issued a final rule amending their incidental take
statement regulations
• Two components:
• The wildlife agencies codified the use of surrogates to express the
amount or extent of a “take”
• The wildlife agencies also codified their authority not to provide an
ITS with a biological opinion for federal planning decisions that
anticipate future harm
• Rather, an ITS will be provided at the point when future activities that
could result in takings are authorized
Revisions to Incidental Take Statement
Regulations
14

15. • On May, 26, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”)
initiated NEPA review of a proposed program for authorizing the
incidental take of migratory birds protected by the MBTA
• Possible approaches include:
• General incidental take authorizations for some types of hazards
associated with particular industry sectors
• Individual permits authorizing incidental take from particular projects
or activities
• Memoranda of Understanding (“MOU”) with federal agencies
• Voluntary guidance for industry sectors
• FWS is requesting public comment on whether it should develop
a general incidental take permit for the wind energy industry
• Public comments are due July 27, 2015
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”)
Incidental Take Permit Program
15

16. • On May 26, 2015, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
finalized a rule defining “waters of the United States” subject to
the Clean Water Act
• The rule was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2015
• Rule attempts to address uncertainty regarding the scope of the
Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction, which is limited to navigable
waters, defined as the waters of the United States, including the
territorial seas
• “Waters of the United States” is not defined in the Clean Water Act
• The Supreme Court has interpreted the term in several cases, most
recently in Rapanos v. United States in 2006, which did not result in
a majority opinion
• The rule affects both the NPDES and Section 404 permitting
programs
Waters of the United States Rule
16

17. • Rule establishes eight categories of jurisdictional waters:
• Six of which are per se covered by the Clean Water Act:
• Traditional navigable waters
• Interstate waters
• Territorial seas
• Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
• Tributaries
• Adjacent waters
• Two of which may be subject to the Clean Water Act after a case-specific
significant nexus analysis:
• Isolated waters (such as Prairie potholes)
• “Other” waters
• Waters within the 100-year floodplain of a traditional navigable water,
interstate water, or the territorial seas
• Waters that are within 4,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a
water of the United States
Waters of the United States Rule
17

18. • Rule establishes exclusions for converted cropland, waste
treatment systems, certain ditches, groundwater, erosional
features, and certain stormwater control features.
• Rule has been criticized as an expansion of regulatory authority
• Broad definition of tributary
• Expansive significant nexus test
• Rule has also been criticized for failing to provide clarity
regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction
• Vague and complicated definitions will be difficult for regulators to
implement
• Rule has been attacked from various angles
• Litigation brought by both industry and states
• Legislation – riders to appropriations bills and bills in both House and Senate
Waters of the United States Rule
18

19. • In 2014, EPA proposed three rules regulating GHG emissions from
new, existing, and modified or reconstructed power plants under
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act
• EPA is planning to finalize these rules this summer
• First, EPA will issue its Section 111(b) rule for new power plants
• EPA sent the rule to OMB for review on May 7th
• Then, EPA will issue the final Clean Power Plan for existing sources
• EPA sent the rule to OMB for review on June 1st
• At the same time, EPA will propose a federal plan for meeting the
Clean Power Plan goals
• Last, EPA will issue its final Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified
and Reconstructed Power Plants
• EPA sent the rule to OMB for review on June 23rd
EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Update
19

20. • Last year, the Supreme Court invalidated the Tailoring Rule in
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA
• EPA may require sources that are subject to PSD and Title V
permitting based on their emissions of conventional pollutants to
comply with best available control technology requirements for GHGs
if they emit more than a de minimis quantity of GHGs
• EPA issued a memo on July 24, 2014 interpreting the de minimis
quantity of GHGs to be 75,000 tons per year of CO2e
• D.C. Circuit vacated the Tailoring Rule regulations on April 10,
2015 and ordered EPA to conduct rulemaking to implement the
Court’s decision
• Uncertainty regarding how PSD permits that were issued to sources
based solely on their GHG emissions under the Tailoring Rule will be
handled in light of the Court’s decision.
Tailoring Rule Update
20

21. Tailoring Rule Update
• On May 7, 2015, EPA issued a direct final rule that would allow
for recession of certain PSD permits issued under Step 2 of the
Tailoring Rule
• The rule became effective on July 6, 2015
• On June 15, 2015 EPA announced its intention to conduct
rulemaking to establish a de minimis threshold of GHG
emissions that will trigger PSD permitting and GHG BACT
requirements for sources that are already subject to PSD based
on their emissions of conventional pollutants
• EPA did not announce a firm timeline for issuing a proposed rule, but
indicated that a proposed rule is still a year away
21

22. CEQ Issuance of NEPA Guidance
Documents

23. CEQ Guidance on GHGs in NEPA Reviews
• On December 18, 2014, CEQ published revised draft guidance
describing how federal agencies should consider the effects of
GHG emissions and climate change in their NEPA reviews
• Supersedes prior draft guidance issued in 2010
• Guidance aims to provide clarity to federal agencies and to improve
consistency in how GHG emissions and climate change are
addressed in NEPA reviews
• Guidance provides a reference point of 25,000 tpy CO2e emissions
below which a quantitative analysis of GHGs is not warranted unless
it is easily accomplished
• Industry groups have urged CEQ to withdraw or narrow its
guidance
23

24. • On December 18, 2014, White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) published a final guidance document clarifying
federal agencies’ use of programmatic NEPA reviews
• Programmatic reviews are performed to assess the environmental
impacts of proposed policies, plans, or programs.
• Agencies should conduct programmatic NEPA reviews when
adopting official policies, formal strategic plans, or approving multiple
projects on a large scale
• Programmatic NEPA reviews will typically be followed by
project-specific NEPA reviews
• Industry has expressed concern that more frequent programmatic
NEPA reviews could cause permitting delays.
CEQ Guidance on Programmatic NEPA Reviews
24

25. Questions?
25

26. Thank You.
Tyson Smith
Energy
San Francisco
TRSmith@winston.com
Stephanie Sebor
Environmental
Chicago
SSebor@winston.com
Eleni Kouimelis
Environmental
Chicago
EKouimel@winston.com
26