Articles, Alerts & Perspectives

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Anna Jewart and Krista-Ann Staley)

Zoning regulations, although important, are not the sole restrictions on land use. Property owners and a variety of entities may agree to impose additional private restrictions on specific pieces of land. These private restrictions can create confusion regarding who, between the parties to the agreement and the municipality, has the authority to interpret and enforce their terms. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently issued a detailed, albeit nonprecedential, opinion addressing this type of scenario in Naylor v. Board of Supervisors of Charlestown Township, No. 659 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmwlth. Jan. 7, 2021). In Naylor, the court addressed a decades-long disagreement over the scope of a conservation easements. Among its holdings, the court concluded a township did not have standing to enforce a private conservation easement, even when it owned a separate parcel subject to the same easement. Naylor is a good reminder that municipal regulations and private agreements are distinct matters with independent enforcement mechanisms.

Easements are a common form of private land use restriction. An easement is a nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property, imposing limitations or affirmative obligations on property called the “servient” estate. Conservation easements are designed for certain “conservation” purposes, such as protecting the natural or scenic values of real property; assuring its availability for agricultural, or recreational use; protecting, or managing the use of natural resources; or maintaining land, air, or water quality.

In Pennsylvania, conservation easements receive certain statutory protections under the Conservation and Preservation Easement Act, 32 P.S. §§5051 et seq., (Easement Act). Enacted in 2001, the Easement Act sets forth requirements for the interpretation, construction and enforcement of conservation easements. …

Washington, DC

Renewables Law Blog

(By Ben Clapp)

A recently settled enforcement action against a solar project developer in Massachusetts underscores the importance of adhering to appropriate stormwater pollution prevention protocols when siting, designing and constructing a project. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued the project developer under state and federal environmental laws, alleging that they had constructed a solar array on a hillside parcel without designing or implementing the required stormwater controls.  Specifically, the Commonwealth alleged that the developer never properly analyzed the potential for harm from stormwater discharges resulting from construction of the solar array, failed to install necessary stormwater controls prior to conducting site clearing and grading activities, applied for a General Stormwater Permit for construction activities (Permit) without having first prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and ultimately failed to comply with requirements of the Permit and SWPPP that are designed to prevent stormwater pollution.  As a result, the Commonwealth claimed, there was an extensive discharge of sediment-laden stormwater over several months into a downgradient river that adversely affected the river’s water quality, and also eroded the hillside, scoured out perennial and intermittent streams, uprooted trees, destroyed streambeds, and filled in wetlands with sediment.  The developer has agreed to pay more than $1 million to settle the claim, which includes the cost of restoring impacted natural resources, compensatory mitigation costs, the Commonwealth’s legal fees, and a $100,000 civil penalty.

The case is an important reminder that renewables projects face the same environmental compliance obligations as any other large-scale infrastructure project, and that such projects, while considered “green,” are not immune from environmental enforcement actions. While renewables projects are often scrutinized for potential impacts to protected species, a greater risk of liability may lie in a project’s failure to comply with more “run of the mill” permitting and compliance requirements.  …

PA Business Central

This has been a year like no other! Our annual Top 100 People edition highlights the vibrant economic and social life of central Pennsylvania by honoring the people who make it happen. When goods or services are delivered in an efficient and timely manner, expertise and knowledge brought to bear on a problem, or necessary care provided, it’s not just the businesses and the institutions – but the people behind them that get the job done. We all know that powerhouse individual – the person with the vision, dedication and drive to not only complete the task, but to envision, expand and excel. We are fascinated by the impact a single individual can have on their workplace, their community and the lives of those around them. The stories of these individuals can provide instruction, inspiration and the motivation to raise our own standard of excellence. That is why we take great pride in bringing you Pennsylvania Business Central’s Top 100 People for 2021!

As always, we reached out to community leaders, local chambers of commerce, and you, our loyal readers, to identify those individuals whose unique contributions have set them apart as leaders. We received a wealth of nominations that reflect the rich diversity of central Pennsylvania and its business community. So many deserving nominations in such a challenging year, that we had to expand our list of honorees – and so we are proud to honor 120 outstanding leaders in this year’s edition!

In selecting this year’s honorees, we wanted to show the full spectrum of leadership – from the small entrepreneur to the CEO of a large corporation – that helps shape our communities and our lives. And while every story is unique, we think you’ll find that these honorees share a dedication to hard work, dynamic leadership and the pursuit of excellence. …

The Legal Intelligencer

(by Brian Lipkin)

In 2021, employers can expect a few significant developments from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):

COVID-19 Standards. Currently, to decide whether an employer has taken proper COVID-19 measures, OSHA typically applies the “general duty clause,” which is the “catch-all” section of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The general duty clause requires a workplace free from recognized hazards, to protect employees from death or serious physical harm.

Currently, OSHA also applies its existing standard on respiratory protection. This standard focuses on whether an employer has identified appropriate protective equipment, issued it to employees, and trained them to use and maintain it properly.

So far, there are no OSHA standards specific to COVID-19. In the near future, we expect that to change.

On Jan. 21—his first full day in office—President Joe Biden signed an executive order on protecting worker health and safety. Biden ordered the Secretary of Labor to consider issuing emergency COVID-19 standards by March 15. In particular, Biden directed the Secretary of Labor to consider ordering employees to wear masks in the workplace.

We expect the new standards will require employers to develop written plans to limit COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. These plans will likely require employers to identify potential risks, and outline mitigation strategies.

Biden also ordered the Secretary of Labor to issue updated COVID-19 guidance for employers by Feb. 4.

OSHA will release the new standards and guidance on its website at osha.gov/coronavirus.

Targeted Enforcement. Currently, OSHA prioritizes two types of workplaces for COVID-19 enforcement: hospitals and health care providers that treat COVID-19 patients; …

Pittsburgh, PA

EmTech Law Blog

(by Chris Farmakis)

We understand the unprecedented challenges facing our organizations. Now, more than ever, we realize how critical it is for our clients to seek cost efficiencies while making legal, operational, financial and ‘game changing’ business decisions.

Solvaire, Babst Calland’s affiliated Alternative Legal Service Provider – with its enhanced AI-enabled processes and machine learning capabilities – can help to increase efficiency, while lowering project costs. For more than 21 years, Solvaire has effectively designed, performed, and implemented complex buy-side diligence projects, discovery projects and tailored document management solutions. Solvaire’s track record and satisfied clients speak for themselves.

Check out Solvaire’s new website and request a free consultation to learn how Solvaire can work with your team to provide superior diligence, discovery and document management services – on time, with accuracy and consistency and within a budget that provides price certainty.

To stay informed about Solvaire news, latest case studies and content, as well as innovative business and technology enhancements, sign up for updates here.

Explore Solvaire, and unlock the value it provides.

On behalf of Babst Calland and Solvaire, we look forward to serving you on your next project.

Chris Farmakis
Chairman, Babst Calland
President, Solvaire

Tags: diligence, Discovery, Document Management, e-Discovery, Solvaire

The PIOGA Press

(by Lisa Bruderly)

On December 10, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued for public comment its draft guidance regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s County of Maui “functional equivalent” analysis within the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (85 Fed. Reg. 79489). The comment period closed on January 11.

In County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020), the Supreme Court held that an NPDES permit is required in instances when a point source discharge of a pollutant through groundwater to a navigable water is the “functional equivalent” of a direct pollutant discharge from a point source into a navigable water. Babst Calland discussed the Supreme Court’s April 23, 2020, decision and its far-reaching implications in the May 2020 PIOGA Press article “Potential Clean Water Act liability extends to discharges to groundwater that reach surface water.”

The Supreme Court offered a non-exclusive list of seven factors to consider on a case-by-case basis:

• Transit time;
• Distance traveled;
• Nature of the material through which the pollutant travels;
• Extent to which the pollutant is diluted or chemically changed as it travels;
• Amount of pollutant entering the navigable waters relative to the amount of the pollutant that leaves the point source;
• Manner by or area in which the pollutant enters the navigable waters; and
• Degree to which the pollution (at that point) has maintained its specific identity.

Emphasis on threshold requirements for NPDES permits

The draft guidance stresses that the County of Maui decision did not change the structure of the NPDES permit program, and, at most, only adds another step in determining whether an NPDES permit is required under a limited number of scenarios. …

The PIOGA Press

(by Robert Stonestreet)

On December 16, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a final regulation to define the term “habitat” for use when designating “critical habitat” areas under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 85 Fed Reg 81411. The ESA already defines the term “critical habitat,” which in general means areas designated as essential to preserve or promote recovery of threatened or endangered species regardless of whether those species are actually present in the area. The term “habitat,” however, is not itself defined in the ESA or pre-existing regulations.

The Service proposed two potential “habitat” definitions in August 2020 for public comment. In the final rulemaking, the Service chose to adopt a “habitat” definition markedly different than the two definitions proposed for public comment back in August. The adopted definition reads as follows:

For the purposes of designating critical habitat only, habitat is the abiotic and biotic setting that currently or periodically contains the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life processes of a species.

According to the Service, abiotic means “derived from non-living sources such as soil, water, temperature, or physical processes” and the term biotic means “derived from living sources such as a plant community type or prey species.” The preamble portion of the Federal Register entry notes that the phrase “resources and conditions” is intended to clarify that habitat “is inclusive of all qualities of an area that can make that area important to the species.”

Compare that definition to the two definitions proposed for public comment on August 5, 2020, which appear below:

     Primary Proposed Definition: The physical places that individuals of a species depend upon to carry out one or more life processes. …

The PIOGA Press

(by Keith Coyle and Brianne Kurdock)

On December 27, President Donald J. Trump signed the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2020 (2020 PIPES Act) into law. Adopted as part of a broader federal spending and COVID-19 relief package, the signing of the 2020 PIPES Act represents the culmination of a multiyear effort to reauthorize the nation’s federal pipeline safety program. The prior reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety program, enacted in the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (2016 PIPES Act), expired on September 30, 2019.

The 2020 PIPES Act authorizes general funding for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Admin – istration’s (PHMSA) gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs of $156.4 million for fiscal year 2021, $158.5 million for FY 2022, and $162.7 million for FY 2023, with additional amounts authorized in each of these fiscal years from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for hazardous liquid pipeline safety and the user fee program for underground gas storage facilities. The 2020 PIPES Act also prescribes specific funding amounts that PHMSA must use for certain activities, including for recruitment and retention of federal pipeline safety personnel, operational expenses, and federal grant programs.

In addition to authorizing funding levels through FY 2023, the 2020 PIPES Act contains several amendments to the federal pipeline safety laws. Some of the key changes are highlighted below.

Title I of the 2020 PIPES Act:

• Establishes a new three-year program for advancing pipeline safety technologies, testing and operational practices.
• Adds an operator’s self-disclosure to the list of factors that PHMSA must consider in assessing administrative civil penalties.
• Recognizes additional due process protections for PHMSA enforcement proceedings, including that:
  • An operator be allowed to request that matters of fact and law be resolved in a consent  agreement and consent order.

…

Pittsburgh, PA

Renewables Law Blog

(By Christopher Hall)

Following the passage of West Virginia Senate Bill 583 in early 2020, West Virginia has seen an uptick in the number of new proposed renewable energy projects.  SB 583 established a new incentive program supporting the development of renewable energy facilities on former industrial sites.  Berkeley County, in the eastern panhandle, recently announced a proposed 100 MW solar facility to be built on a 750 acre brownfield site previously used as a manufacturing facility.  Read more.

Tags: energy, renewable, SB 583, solar, tax credits, West Virginia Senate Bill 583

Renewables Law Blog

(By Christopher Hall)

The recently approved federal spending bill for 2021 appropriations (December 27, 2020) included extensions to the federal solar investment tax credit (ITC) and wind production tax credit (PTC).  The ITC and PTC provide significant financial incentives to the growing renewable energy industry. The ITC is a tax credit that can be claimed on federal corporate income taxes for a percent of the cost of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system that is placed in service.  The ITC, which was scheduled to step down from 26% to 22% in 2021, has been extended at its current 26% rate for an additional two years through 2023.  The PTC is a per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit for electricity generated using qualified energy resources including wind, and was scheduled to phase down from 60% of the original credit to 40% in 2021.  The new spending bill included an extension of the 60% rate for an additional year through 2021. Projects must be commenced prior to the expiration of the new extension deadlines in order to qualify for the current tax credit rate. Please click here for more information.

Tags: energy, federal solar investment tax credit, federal spending bill, ITC, PTC, renewable, solar, tax credits, wind, wind production tax credit