General – Page 3 – Sustainability, Resiliency and Risk Mitigation

April 5, 2023 by Brad A. Molotsky

5th Circuit Court of Appeals – Dismissal and Vacation of Lower Court Ruling – the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas is Back in Action

In January, 2021, the Biden Administration issued Executive Order 13990 (“EO”) which re-established an interagency working group (the “Working Group”) in order to formulate guidance on the “social cost of greenhouse gases“. The EO directed the Working Group to publish dollar estimates quantifying changes in carbon, methane and nitrous oxide emissions for consideration by all federal agencies when policy making.

Since 2021, the working group has published their Interim Estimates which were based largely on findings of their predecessor Working Group which was established during the Obama Administration.

Various State Attorneys General from Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming (the “Plaintiff States“) challenged the EO and the Interim Estimates as procedurally invalid, arbitrary and capricious and obtained a preliminary injunction in the Western District Court of Louisiana.

The 5th Circuit concluded that the Plaintiff States did NOT establish standing to bring such a claim, and, as such, dismissed their action for lack of jurisdiction and vacated the lower courts preliminary injunction. The court indicated that the Plaintiff States failed to meet their burden to prove standing as they did not show an injury in fact. With this ruling, the Working Group and the Interim Estimates may now be used by various federal agencies as part of their analysis and policymaking.

For more than a decade, federal agencies have considered the effect of greenhouse gas emissions (along with a host of other variables) in their cost benefit analysis in determining whether to and the cost of implement various regulations. As the Court pointed out, before proposing any significant action, federal agencies are required to assess the costs and benefits of the regulation and submit to the Office of Management and Budget their assessment for review.

In 2009, the Obama Administration established the original working group to develop a transparent and defensible method, designed for the federal rulemaking process, to quantify the social costs of greenhouse gases. In 2017, after years of work and research, this group derived estimates from peer-reviewed models for translating emissions into dollar costs. Their findings were the subject of public notices and comments and were peer reviewed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine.

Later in 2017, the Trump Administration disbanded the prior working group and its work product withdrawn from federal agencies, but these federal agencies were not barred from “monetizing the value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from proposed regulations.” In ohter words, the agencies were not mandated to include the Interim Estimates BUT they were still permitted to include greenhouse gas emissions and their impact in the agencies’ recommendations. The result of the disbanding of the working group was that instead of utilizing a coordinated approach across all agencies, each agency was left to its own devices in determining how and whether to score green house gas emissions in preparing its cost benefit analysis for a given regulation.

In early 2021, under the Biden Administration, the Working Group was reconvened under EO 13990 and re-tasked with developing Interim Estimates that would be “appropriate and consistent with applicable law.” When the applicable federal agency relies on the Interim Estimates to justify a final action, the court noted that the agency “must respond to any significant comment on those estimates and ensure it analysis” is “not arbitrary or capricious”.

Although some could characterize the Court’s ruling as a bit of legal “in the weeds” arguments over standing and injury, the crux of the court’s ruling hinged on the fact that the “EO 13990 does NOT require any action from federal agencies”. Agencies are required to exercise discretion in conducting their cost benefit analysis and deciding whether or not to use the Interim Estimates. If used, “the Interim Estimates are required by the EO to be appropriate and consistent with applicable law.” The Court further noted that “nothing in EO 13990 requires States to implement the Interim Estimates.”

Parting Thoughts – activism by the Plaintiff States Attorneys’ General is on the rise in the ESG arena and is evident in various articles and actions being taken to oppose various ESG and environmentally focused regulations. It is likely that this activism continues and that further ESG focused programs in investments arena and in disclosure of the impacts of climate change (like the proposed SEC Rules on Climate Change Disclosure which are supposed to be announces as final this month) continue to be called into question by these Plaintiff States. We will continue to monitor and report on these developments as they occur and are here if we can be helpful to you in your analysis on how they might affect your operations, your businesses or you.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. We would be happy to discussion your proposed project and how this DOE funding prize might apply to you. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley or David Amerikaner or the attorney in the firm with whom you in regular contact or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

April 4, 2023 by Brad A. Molotsky

The Biden Administration and the ESG Investment Rule Congressional Veto

In late March, 2023, President Biden issued the first veto of his Administration. The veto overturned a Republican led measure that was seeking to overturn a Department of Labor retirement plan rule.

Pretty wonky stuff you say?

The Republican measure was designed to overturn a Labor Department rule that would allow (note the word allow, NOT mandate) retirement plan managers to consider climate change in making their investment decisions.

Sounds like some double speak there doesn’t it? The Department of Labor rule was enacted to “permit” investment managers to consider climate change in making decisions. The rules did NOT require this consideration, rather, it permitted it at the discretion of the investment manager.

Congress (in a House vote of 216-204 mostly along party lines and a Senate vote of 50-46 with Democratic Senators Manchin and Tester voting with their Republican colleagues,) voted to overturn the Department of Labor Rule – effectively saying, investment managers should NOT be permitted to consider what some view as relevant information in making an informed decision (e.g., if an area floods daily, should one invest in an asset located there or instead invest where there is not a flooding risk; alternatively, if an area is prone to forest fire risk vs. an area that is not prone to this type of risk, should a manager be able to consider this if they think it relevant?).

The Administration took issue with the overturned Labor Department rule and opted to veto the Congressional restriction on being able to consider climate change in investment manager decisions. Again, as noted above, the Labor Department Rule does NOT require every or any investment manager to consider climate change in their investment decisions, instead it enables these managers to choose how they view climate change, and if they believe climate change to be a relevant factor in making an investment decision, to take it into account when making their decision.

This is likely the first of many such skirmishes to come on the ESG front and its use as a tool or a hammer, depending on your perspective, in making decisions.

Parting Thoughts – if you are an investor looking to deploy your investment dollars, the question is whether you think your investment advisor should be able to (without being required to) take into account climate factors when making investment suggestions to you or not. How and whether resiliency, climate factors, resource allocation and applicable risk mitigation is permitted or mandated into future investment decisions are some of the areas where it is highly likely that additional political party skirmishes will occur.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. We would be happy to discussion your proposed project and how this DOE funding prize might apply to you. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley or David Amerikaner or the attorney in the firm with whom you in regular contact or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

April 3, 2023April 3, 2023 by Rebecca Green

ESG and the Growing Interplay with Class Action Lawsuits

The plaintiffs’ class action bar is exceedingly innovative and in constant pursuit of “the next big then” insofar as potential liability is concerned for acts and omissions of Corporate America. Environmental, Social, and Governance – known as “ESG” – each of the verticals within ESG are surely are topics on the mind of leading plaintiffs’ class action litigators. As ESG-related issues evolve and become increasingly more important to corporate stakeholders, class action litigation against companies is inevitable and has already begun to take shape. This blog post reviews the current landscape of litigation risks, and underscores how good corporate compliance programs and corporate citizenship are prerequisites to minimizing risk.

The Class Action Context:

In 2022, the plaintiffs’ class action bar filed, litigated, and settled class actions at a breathtaking pace. The aggregate totals of the top ten class action settlements – in areas as diverse as mass torts, consumer fraud, antitrust, civil rights, securities fraud, privacy, and employment-related claims – reached the highest historical totals in the history of American jurisprudence. Class actions and government enforcement litigation spiked to over $63 billion in settlement totals. As analyzed in our Duane Morris Class Action Review https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2023/01/04/it-is-here-the-duane-morris-class-action-review-2023/, the totals included $50.32 billion for products liability and mass tort, $8.5 billion for consumer fraud, $3.7 billion for antitrust, $3.25 billion for securities fraud, and $1.3 billion for civil rights.

As “success begets success’ in this litigation space, the plaintiffs’ bar is loaded for bear in 2023, and focused on areas of opportunity for litigation targets. ESG-related areas are a prime area of risk.

The ESG Context

Corporate ESG programs is in a state of constant evolution. Early iterations were heavily focused on corporate social responsibility (or “CSR”), with companies sponsoring initiatives that were intended to benefit their communities. They entailed things like employee volunteering, youth training, and charitable contributions as well as internal programs like recycling and employee affinity groups. These efforts were not particularly controversial.

In recent years, ESG programs have become more extensive and more deeply integrated with companies’ core business strategies, including strategies for avoiding risks, such as those presented by employment discrimination claims, the impacts of climate change, supply chain accountability, and cybersecurity and privacy. Companies and studies have increasingly framed ESG programs as contributing to shareholder value.

As ESG programs become larger and more integrated into a company’s business, so do the risks of attracting attention from regulators and private litigants.

And The Lawsuits Begin From All Quarters:

While class action litigation can emanate from many sources, four areas in particular are of importance in the ESG space.

Shareholders: Lawsuits by shareholders regarding ESG matters are accelerating. Examples include claims that their stock holdings have lost value as a result of false disclosures about issues like sexual harassment allegations involving key executives, cybersecurity incidents, or environmental disasters. Even absent a stock drop, some shareholders have brought successful derivative suits focused on ESG issues. Of recent note, employees of corporations incorporated in Delaware who serve in officer roles may be sued for breach of the duty of oversight in the particular area over which they have responsibility, including oversight over workplace harassment policies. In its ruling https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2023/01/30/delaware-says-corporate-officers-are-now-subject-to-a-duty-of-oversight-in-the-workplace-harassment-context/ in In Re McDonald’s Corp. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2021-CV-324 (Del. Ch. Jan. 25, 2023), the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that like directors, officers are subject to oversight claims. The ruling expands the scope of the rule established in the case of In Re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), which recognized the duty of oversight for directors. The decision will likely result in a flurry of litigation activity by the plaintiffs’ bar, as new cases will be filed alleging that officers in corporations who were responsible for overseeing human resource functions can be held liable for failing to properly oversee investigations of workplace misconduct such as sexual harassment.

Vendors and Business Partners: As companies face increasing demands to address ESG issues in their operations and throughout their supply chains, ESG requirements in commercial contracts are increasing in prevalence. Requirements imposed on vendors, suppliers, and partners – to ensure their operations do not introduce ESG risks (e.g., by using forced or child labor or employing unsustainable environmental practices) are becoming regular staples in a commercial context. In addition, as more companies report greenhouse gas emissions – and may soon be required by the SEC to report on them – they increasingly require companies in their supply chain to provide information about their own emissions. Furthermore, if the SEC’s proposed cybersecurity disclosure rules are enacted, companies also may require increased reporting regarding cybersecurity from vendors and others. These actions – and disclosures – provide fodder for “greenwashing” claims, where consumers claim that company statements about environmental or social aspects of their products are false and misleading. The theories in these class actions are expanding by encompassing allegations involving product statements as well as a company’s general statements about its commitment to sustainability.

State Consumer Protection and Employment Laws: The patchwork quilt of state laws create myriad causes of action for alleged false advertising and other misleading marketing statements. The plaintiffs’ bar also has invoked statutes like the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to bring claims against companies for alleged failures to stop alleged human rights violations in their supply chains. These claims typically allege that the existence of company policies and programs aimed at helping end human rights violations are themselves a basis for liability. In making human capital management disclosures a part of ESG efforts (including whether to disclose numeric metrics or targets based on race or gender), companies may find themselves in a difficult place with respect to potential liability stemming from stated commitments to diversity and inclusion. On the one hand, companies that fail to achieve numeric targets they articulate (e.g., a certain percent or increase in diversity among management) may subject themselves to claims of having overpromised when discussing their future plans. Conversely, employers that achieve such targets may face “reverse discrimination” claims alleging that they abandoned race-based or gender-neutral employment practices to hit numbers set forth in their public statements.

Government Enforcement Litigation: Federal, state and local government regulators have taken multiple actions against companies based on their alleged contributions to climate change or alleged illegal activities. For instance, in 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice investigated auto companies for possible antitrust violations for agreeing with California to adopt emissions standards more restrictive than those established by federal law. While the investigation did not reveal wrongdoing, it underscores the creativity that proponents and opponents of ESG efforts can employ.

Implications For Corporate America:

The creation, content, and implementation of ESG programs carries increasing litigation risks for corporations but it is unlikely that ESG progams will diminish is size or scale in the coming years given increased focus by Fortune 100s and 500s and increased regulation at the federal and state levels.

Sound planning, comprehensive legal compliance, and systematic auditing of ESG programs should be a key focus and process of all entities beginning or continuing their ESG journey. As more and more companies adopt some level of corporative ESG strategy planning, compliance and auditing are some of the key imperatives in this new world of exposure to diminish and limit one’s exposure.

Duane Morris has an active Class Action Team to help organizations respond to the ever increasing need to be proactive to these types of risks. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Gerald (Jerry) L. Maatman, Jennifer Riley or the attorney in the firm whom you are regularly in contact with. We also have ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, David Amerikaner, Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

February 10, 2023 by David Amerikaner

Innovative New Jersey Low-Carbon Concrete Law Could Jumpstart Infrastructure Decarbonization Nationwide

Recently enacted legislation in New Jersey to encourage the use of low-carbon concrete in state-funded construction projects could not only yield significant reductions in the carbon footprint of Garden State bridges, sidewalks, and foundations, but could be used as a model by other states and the federal government.

The law, known as the Low Embodied Carbon Concrete Leadership Act (LECCLA) (S-287), offers tax incentives for producers who supply state projects with concrete containing reduced quantities of embodied carbon. As a first step, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) will publish rules establishing baseline embodied carbon quantities for concrete. Beginning in 2024, concrete producers who supply at least 50 yards of concrete to state-funded projects and whose product contains less embodied carbon than the baseline will be eligible for corporation business tax (CBT) credits of up to 8 percent of the total cost of the contract.

Several means of reducing embodied carbon in concrete are incentivized by the law. Producers can obtain tax credits of up to 5 percent by reducing embodied carbon in concrete by: (i) improving energy efficiency at the cement plant or concrete plant stages; (ii) substituting low carbon fuels for carbon-intensive fuels at the cement plant or concrete plant stages; (iii) using locally sourced ingredients in concrete mixes, reducing transportation-related emissions; (iv) reducing cement content in concrete mix by substituting materials such as fly ash, slag, or recycled ground-glass pozzolan (collectively known as supplementary cementitious materials, or SCMs), to reduce the quantity of emissions-intensive cement in the mix; (v) capturing and storing point source carbon emissions during the cement plant or concrete plant stages; or (vi) utilizing and storing carbon in concrete. An additional 3 percent tax credit will be available to producers who use carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) technology in the concrete manufacturing process. The two tax credits can be combined.

Concrete producers will need to submit verified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for the concrete they supply to state projects in order to become eligible for the tax credits. EPDs are measurements of the life cycle environmental attributes of a particular product, in this case total carbon emissions, using an ISO-published methodology.

Because of the low margins in the highly competitive concrete industry, producers may be able to take advantage of any cost savings generated by these tax credits to pass along lower bids to project proponents, and thereby win additional business. Companies that invest in carbon-reducing practices, such as increasing use of SCMs in their mixes, switching to cement produced using lower carbon fuels or at plants employing CCUS technology, or finding suppliers in closer proximity to their ready-mix plants, will have a significant advantage over companies that are slower to act. Investment in carbon reduction will, potentially, become an essential catalyst to staying competitive in the market.

The tax credit system is also uniquely designed to stay ahead of the curve. NJDEP has the power to shift the concrete carbon baseline lower, thereby forcing producers to bring embodied carbon levels down even further to continue to qualify for the full tax incentives over time. The approach in New Jersey goes further than the federal Buy Clean initiative, which sets embodied emissions benchmarks for various materials that federal project suppliers must meet to be considered for federal contracts. In New Jersey, suppliers must bring embodied emissions below the threshold in order to qualify.

One criticism is that the state has only allocated $10 million in tax credits per year to qualifying companies, and no producer may win more than $1 million in credits in any year. But the law will do its job if it succeeds in nudging the concrete industry toward a lower carbon norm.

Many stakeholders hope, and some even predict, that the New Jersey approach will be quickly adopted by other states. Neighboring New York has been studying a low-carbon concrete program and is set to consider legislation in the coming months. Now that New Jersey has acted first, many hope that New York will also opt for an incentive-based approach that could rework the economics of concrete production in the Empire State. Other states, such as California, could also consider the model in the coming years. Of course, the biggest prize would be the federal government, which is one of the biggest concrete procurement entities in the world and could radically reshape the industry if it adopted an incentive-based model for carbon reduction.

The New Jersey program also arrives just as municipalities across the nation, including New York, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, and others, are implementing programs to reduce carbon emissions from their built environments. Broad availability of low-carbon concrete would improve the emissions profiles of many buildings and their supporting infrastructure if widely adopted, and cities would be wise to consider incentive programs similar to New Jersey’s in order to put this technology into wider use.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact David Amerikaner, Sheila Raftery Wiggins, Brad A. Molotsky, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

January 18, 2023 by Brad A. Molotsky

Department of Energy – $22M in Funds available under the Buildings Upgrade Prize

Earlier this week, the Department of Energy (“DOE”) announced $22 Million Dollars in prize money availability under a new program entitled “The Buildings Upgrade Prize” or “Buildings UP“.

According to the DOE, the Buildings UP program is designed to accelerate the transformation of U.S. buildings into energy-efficient and clean energy-ready homes, commercial spaces, and communities

The Buildings Upgrade Prize is offering more than $22 million in cash prizes and technical assistance to teams across America with winning ideas to accelerate widespread, equitable energy efficiency and building electrification upgrades.

According to Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to leverage billions of dollars in funding available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, utility rebate programs, and many other sources to upgrade our existing buildings and help address climate change”.

Per DOE’s press release, proposed solutions can be varied and may include adoption of efficient electric equipment and appliances, including heat pumps and heat pump water heaters, as well as enhanced building efficiency through measures such as insulation and air sealing. Together, these efforts should help reduce carbon emissions and energy costs while improving indoor air quality and occupant comfort.

In Phase 1 of Buildings UP, teams are required to submit ideas for innovative concepts to increase building energy upgrades, choosing to enter one of two pathways: “Equity-Centered Innovation” or “Open Innovation.”

Winning “Equity-Centered Innovation” teams, focused on delivering upgrades to low- and moderate-income homes; small, disadvantaged businesses; and other equity-eligible buildings, will receive $400,000 in cash.

Winning “Open Innovation” teams will receive $200,000 in cash. Winners from both pathways will also receive expert technical assistance and coaching to help bring their ideas to life.

Community-based organizations, state and local governments, Indian tribes, building owners, utilities, nonprofit organizations, energy efficiency program implementers, and other organizations are encouraged to team up and apply.

Phase 1 opens for submissions on February 18, 2023.

Separately, up to 50 Application Support Prizes of $5,000 and 10 hours of technical assistance are available to help new and under-resourced teams complete Phase 1 applications.

The Application Support Prize opens for submissions on Jan. 18, 2023, and will be awarded on a rolling basis until funds are expended.

Buildings UP is administered by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and is part of the American-Made program, which fast-tracks innovation through prizes, training, teaming, and mentoring. Teams competing in Buildings UP will have access to the American-Made Network, connecting the nation’s entrepreneurs and innovators to America’s national labs and the private sector. Mentoring, tools, resources, and support through the American-Made Network help accelerate the transition of ideas into real-world solutions to achieve clean energy goals.

Buildings UP was developed and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Office as part of its overall mission to reduce the carbon footprint of the U.S. building stock while maintaining or improving affordability, comfort, and performance.

Phase 1 submissions are due by July 18, 2023.

Parting Thoughts – if you are an owner of a building or a community-based organization, state and local government entity, an Indian tribe, a utility a nonprofit organizations or an energy efficiency program implementers, now is the time to dust off your thinking cap and team with others who can be helpful to apply for these grant funds. Real money available to assist along with technical know how – what do you have to lose.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. We would be happy to discussion your proposed project and how this DOE funding prize might apply to you. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley or David Amerikaner or the attorney in the firm with whom you in regular contact or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

January 12, 2023 by Duane Morris

Investments in Clean Buildings Announced by New York Governor

On the Duane Morris Construction Law Blog, attorney Jose A. Aquino writes that:

New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced new investments in clean and efficient buildings. As part of her 2023 State of the State, Governor Hochul introduced a series of building decarbonization initiatives, including zero-emission for new construction and the phase out of the sale of new fossil fuel heating equipment.

Read the full post.

December 14, 2022December 16, 2022 by Duane Morris

New ESG Disclosure Rules: EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive

In April 2021 the European Commission presented a proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) that would amend the current Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and form part of the wider EU policy to require companies to publicly disclose information and data around environmental, social affairs and governance matters.

On 28 November 2022, the European Council adopted the CSRD following adoption by the European Parliament on 10 November 2022. The CSRD will come into force 20 days after publication in the EU Official Journal and EU member states will then have 18 months to incorporate it into their national laws.

To read the full text of this blog post by Drew Salvest, Natalie Stewart and Rebecca Green, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.

September 8, 2022 by Brad A. Molotsky

ESG – NJBPU issues Order requiring Energy and Water reporting for all Buildings over 25,000 SF

In September, 2022, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) issued an order requiring the owner or operator of every commercial building over 25,000 square feet in the state to benchmark their energy and water use as part of an effort to spur energy efficiency.

Building owners must use the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s online Portfolio Manager Tool to measure and analyze their respective facilities’ energy and water usage. NJBPU’s website has information about how to report benchmarking. The first benchmarking submissions are due on Oct. 1, 2023, for energy and water consumed in 2022. Portfolio Manager is a FREE tool from the EPA that enables owners to input data and measure and monitor consumption.

“This is the next important step in implementing a best in class, statewide, energy efficiency program which will help us achieve Governor Murphy’s goal of 100% clean energy by 2050,” said NJBPU President Joseph L. Fiordaliso. “Creating a system of benchmarking allows us to measure the use of energy (electricity and gas) and water by the state’s biggest buildings and support building owners in reducing energy and water usage and operating costs.”

Benchmarking is intended to help commercial building owners and operators measure and analyze their respective facilities’ energy and water usage and compare it to other similar buildings. Building owners and operators can use this information to make informed decisions about taking advantage of financial incentives for energy efficiency improvements.

The NJBPU initiative is directed by the New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan, which calls for transparent benchmarking and energy labeling. The program it intended to enable building owners to obtain aggregated, building-level energy and water data from their utility companies through a data access service. The Board will also establish a “help desk” to assist building owners as they measure and analyze their respective buildings’ energy and water performance.

This program will also protect individual ratepayers’ energy and water use information by requiring utilities to securely provide aggregated, building-level data. Building owners are required to obtain their tenants’ affirmative, written consent for the utilities from which they receive services to provide building-level energy and water data to the building owner in certain situations to protect individual energy and water use information.

Consent will be required only when there are fewer than four tenants in a building or if one tenant exceeds 50% of the energy or water consumption.

More information about building benchmarking through NJBPU is available at https://njcleanenergy.com/commercial-industrial/programs/energy-benchmarking.

Food For Thought – NJ through the NJBPU Order joins California and Washington state as well as over 42 cities and 2 counties in requiring some form of energy and water disclosure mandate. While many do not like being forced to report which is understandable, having this mandate will enable the State and tenants to better access which buildings are more efficient than others when it comes to energy and water consumption that are often paid for by common area charges assessed to these tenants. If and to the extent the SEC’s proposed rules on climate disclosure become effective, having a tool that allows for measurement and verification of various data sets will help bolster various companies ability to measure, verify and report on such data in the energy, water, waste, recycling, materials and air quality space.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. We would be happy to discussion your proposed project and how these new rules might apply to you. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Sheila Rafferty-Wiggins, Brad A. Molotsky, Alice Shanahan, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley, David Amerikaner or the attorney in the firm with whom you in regular contact or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

August 31, 2022 by Brad A. Molotsky

EPA proposes to Designate 2 new PFAS and PFOS Chemicals as Hazardous Substances!

Earlier this week on August 25, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a significant step under Administrator Regan’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap in an effort to protect people and communities from the health risks posed by certain PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals.”

EPA is proposing to designate two of the most widely used per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as “hazardous substances” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as “Superfund.”

The proposal applies to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), including their salts and structural isomers, and, according to EPA’s press release, is based on significant evidence that PFOA and PFOS may present a substantial danger to human health or welfare or the environment. According to various reports, PFOA and PFOS can accumulate and persist in the human body for long periods of time and evidence from laboratory animal and human epidemiology studies indicates that exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS may lead to cancer, reproductive, developmental, cardiovascular, liver, and immunological effects.

If finalized, the rulemaking would trigger reporting of PFOA and PFOS releases, providing the EPA with improved data and the option to require cleanups and recover cleanup costs to protect public health and encourage better waste management.

EPA is also focused on holding responsible those who have manufactured and released significant amounts of PFOA and PFOS into the environment. In its press release, the EPA announces that they will use enforcement discretion and other approaches to ensure fairness for minor parties who may have been inadvertently impacted by the contamination. EPA is also doing further outreach and engagement to hear from impacted communities, wastewater utilities, businesses, farmers and other parties during the consideration of the proposed rule.

If this designation is finalized, releases of PFOA and PFOS that meet or exceed the reportable quantity would have to be reported to the National Response Center, state or Tribal emergency response commissions, and the local or Tribal emergency planning committees.

EPA stated that they anticipate that a final rule would encourage better waste management and treatment practices by facilities handling PFOA or PFOS. The reporting of a release could potentially accelerate privately financed cleanups and mitigate potential adverse impacts to human health and the environment.
Additionally, the proposed rule would, in certain circumstances, facilitate making the polluter pay by allowing EPA to seek to recover cleanup costs from a potentially responsible party or to require such a party to conduct the cleanup. In addition, federal entities that transfer or sell their property will be required to provide a notice about the storage, release, or disposal of PFOA or PFOS on the property and a covenant (commitment in the deed) warranting that it has cleaned up any resulting contamination or will do so in the future, if necessary, as required under CERCLA 120(h).

EPA will be publishing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register in the next several weeks. Upon publication, there will be a 60-day public comment period.

As a subsequent step, EPA anticipates issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after the close of the comment period on its proposal to seek public comment on designating other PFAS chemicals as CERCLA hazardous substances.

EPA has taken a number of recent actions on PFAS including:

• Releasing drinking water health advisories for 4 PFAS – using the best available science to attempt to address PFAS pollution, protect public health, and provide critical information quickly and transparently;

• Making available $1 billion in grant funding through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law;

• Issuing the first Toxic Substances Control Act PFAS test order under the National PFAS Testing Strategy;

• Adding five PFAS Regional Screening and Removal Management Levels that EPA uses to help determine if cleanup is needed;

• Publishing draft aquatic life water quality criteria for PFOA and PFOS;

• Issuing a memo to address PFAS in Clean Water Act permitting;

• Publishing a new draft total adsorbable fluorine wastewater method; and

• Issuing the 5th Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule to improve EPA’s understanding of the frequency that 29 PFAS are found in the nation’s drinking water systems and at what levels and preparing to propose a PFAS National Drinking Water Regulation by the end of 2022.

Food For Thought – while some argue that the EPA has gone to far in their regulatory rule making, others view these proposed designations as a big step in the appropriate direction to regulate and capture critical data on the location of PFAS and PFOS so that these chemicals can be trapped and then eliminated from our water system and our sewage systems. Many reports now exists which indicate the negative impact of PFAS and PFOS on the human body. Wherever you come out on this topic, taking steps to reduce our own exposure and our children’s exposure to PFAS and PFOS and to focus on entrapment and non-hazardous destruction of these impactful chemicals is continuing to be the focus of many within the industry. New and improved technology for breaking down PFAS and PFOS into its constituent parts in a non-off gassing, safe manner are a very near future event and can be done.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. We would be happy to discussion your proposed project and how these new PFAS and PFOS rules might apply to you. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, Alice Shanahan Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ansley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley or David Amerikaner or the attorney in the firm with whom you in regular contact or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

August 17, 2022 by Brad A. Molotsky

ESG – What is included the Inflation Reduction Act?

Earlier this week the President signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act. Without pontificating on its virtues or short comings, here is how the Inflation Reduction Act breaks down by the numbers:

HEALTH CARE:

Cutting Prescription Drug Cost

As estimated by the office of Management and Budget:

5-7 million Medicare beneficiaries could see their prescription drug costs reduced because of the provision allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs;

50 million Americans with Medicare Part D will have their costs at the pharmacy capped at $2,000 per year, directly benefiting about 1.4 million beneficiaries each year;

3.3 million Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes will benefit from a guarantee that their insulin costs are capped at $35 for a month’s supply.

Lowering Health Care Costs – per the White House:

13 million Americans will continue to save an average of $800 per year on health insurance premiums under Obama Care;

3 million more Americans will be eligible for health insurance; and

The current uninsured rate is at an all-time low of 8%.

CLEAN ENERGY:

Lowering Energy Costs

$14,000 in direct consumer rebates for families to buy heat pumps and other energy efficient home appliances;

a 30% tax credit for solar on roofs program, saving families and estimated $9,000 over the life of the system or at least $300 per year;

Up to $7,500 in tax credits for new electric vehicles and $4,000 for used electric vehicles, helping families save $950 per year – noting there are requirements that various parts of the car be made in America which at this time is not part of the supply chain;

The Administration has stated that their goal in the IRA is to power homes, businesses, and communities with much more clean energy by 2030, including adding:

950 million solar panels;
120,000 wind turbines;
2,300 grid-scale battery plants;
Advance cost-saving clean energy projects at rural electric cooperatives serving 42 million people;
Strengthen climate resilience and protect nearly 2 million acres of national forests; and
Creating millions of good-paying jobs making clean energy in America.
Reducing Harmful Pollution

The hope is that through these actions, the IRA will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 1 gigaton in 2030, or a billion metric tons – 10 times more climate impact than any other single piece of legislation ever enacted.

Moreover, the Administration is incenting carbon capture technology in order to deploy clean energy and reduce particle pollution from fossil fuels to avoid up to 3,900 premature deaths and up to 100,000 asthma attacks annually by 2030.

Fuel For Thought – while some argue that the IRA is too expensive and that carbon reduction goals are not necessary, others view these steps as a good step but not nearly enough to reduce green house gas emissions as set forth in the Paris Accord by 2030. Wherever you come out on this topic, taking steps to reduce our own personal greenhouse gas impact are within our own power. As such, if you don’t believe that humankind contributes to green house gas impacts and global warming then try doing something to help your own personal reduction to support those that really believe this is a serious issue. Your own reduction cannot hurt and it just might help if we all engage and look to help.

Duane Morris has an active ESG and Sustainability Team to help organizations and individuals plan, respond to, and execute on your Sustainability and ESG planning and initiatives. We would be happy to discussion your proposed project and how the Inflation Reduction Act might apply with you. For more information or if you have any questions about this post, please contact Brad A. Molotsky, Jeff Hamera, Nanette Heide, Joel Ephross, Jolie-Anne Ainsley, Robert Montejo, Seth Cooley or David Amerikaner or the attorney in the firm with whom you in regular contact or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.