NSR Law Blog

ehiser@NSRLaw.com

480-505-3900

480-505-3901

5080 North 40th St, Suite 245
Phoenix, Arizona 85018

©2017 by NSRLaw

NSR Law Blog

ehiser@NSRLaw.com

480-505-3900

  • Home

  • Blog

  • Subscribe

  • About

  • More

    EPA Adopts Simpler Test for "Common Control"

    September 2, 2018

    |

    Eric L. Hiser

    On April 30, 2018, Assistant Administrator Bill Wehrum issued a letter to Patrick McDonnell, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, substantially overhauling how EPA looks at “common control” under the NSR and Title V permit programs.  In lieu of the old multi-factor test, EPA now directs focusing on “the power or authority of one entity to dictate decisions of the other that could affect the applicability of, or compliance with, relevant air pollution regulatory requirements.”  Attachment at 6.  The new guidance is discussed in more detail below.

     

    ANALYSIS

     

    The issue arose in a landfill gas context.  Meadowbrook Energy stated that it intended to construct a biogass processing facility to convert landfill gas (LFG) and other potential biogas feedstocks into pipeline quality natural gas.  Meadowbrook entered into an agreement with Keystone Sanitary Landfill, in which Keystone agreed to deliver LFG to Meadowbrook.  Keystone controlled the LFG system up to the metering point and could flare LFG if Meadowbrook did not take it.  Meadowbrook is not obligated to take all of Keystone’s LFG, but its needs exceed Keystone's production and it is looking for more sources of supply.  Meadowbrook and Keystone do not have any overlapping ownership or operational management.  Meadowbrook requested a “separate source” determination so that the responsible official of one operation would not need to certify to the other operation’s compliance.

     

    Administrator Wehrum’s analysis began with the three factors in the NSR and Title V rules:  same industrial grouping, location on contiguous or adjacent property, and common control.  He agreed that this is a case-by-case decision, but that EPA must be “mindful” of a decision from the D.C. Circuit that the definition “should comport with the ‘common sense notion of a plant.’”  He then detailed the evolution of EPA’s analysis of “common control,” starting with the SEC definition, which is “the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person (or organization or association) whether through the ownership of voting shares, contract, or otherwise.”  EPA has looked at shared workforces, management, administrative functions, equipment, intermediaries or byproducts, pollution control responsibilities, and/or support/dependency relationships.  This became known as the “multi-factor” approach.  Over time, EPA expanded the support/dependency prong to find that entities that were “economically or operationally interconnected” might have common control.

     

    As a result of the review of the Meadowbrook request, Assistant Administrator Wehrum concluded that the multi-factor approach “has resulted in the potential for inconsistent outcomes in source determinations and an overall lack of clarity and certainty for sources and permitting authorities,” as well as creating “practical difficulties” and “inequitable outcomes.” 

     

    Therefore, Assistant Administrator Wehrum articulated a new, case-by-case, test focusing on “the power or authority of one entity to dictate decisions of the other that could affect the applicability of, or compliance with, relevant air pollution regulatory requirements.”  Attachment at 6.   He then expanded on how to apply this basic test, defining “control” as “the power or authority to dictate decisions” and clarified that “control” does not include “the mere ability to influence.”  Control can be shown by ownership or management authority, contract (where a contract allows entity X to direct the action of entity Y) or similar forms of control.  Assistant Administrator Wehrum emphasized that “the focus is not on how control is established, but on whether control is established.”  The final paragraph of this section is explicit: “EPA will from this point forward interpret the term ‘control’ in its title V and NSR regulations to require more than the ability to influence.”  Attachment at 7.

     

    Assistant Administrator Wehrum than evaluated “what” must be “controlled” and concluded that the inquiry should be limited to “control over decisions that affect the applicability of, or compliance with, relevant air pollution regulatory requirements.”  Attachment at 8.  He outlined a practical test of whether the activities at one source would “control” the permit requirements of the other source.  If it would, then the first source likely has the relevant “control” over the second source.  The letter also noted that forcing entities in this situation together could result in those entities being legally responsible for actions over which they have no control, which the letter concludes is “inequitable.” 

     

    Finally, the letter concludes that “dependency relationships should not be presumed to result in common control.”  The letter reemphasizes that “a support facility analysis is only relevant under the SIC-code determination.”  The letter makes this point starkly, stating that “the fact that one facility would not profitably exist but for the existence of another entity does not necessarily mean that, at some point after beginning operation, the entities will have the power or authority to dictate the outcome of decisions regarding relevant air-pollution related aspects of each others’s operations.”  Attachment at 11.

     

    Based on the foregoing analysis, the letter concludes that in EPA’s view, Meadowbrook and Keystone were separate facilities, but that since the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had primacy, the final decision was Pennsylvania’s.

     

    COMMENTARY

     

    This is a helpful decision for business because it reinforces that the regulatory definition of source has three separate and independent prongs – contiguity/adjacency, control, and SIC code.  The trend has been for EPA, its regions and States to blur the control and SIC code tests.  This often results in the “inequitable” situation described in the letter, where two actually independent companies have to try to work together under a single permit.  This co-habitation is difficult in the best of times and becomes even more problematic in the NSR context because separate entities typically do not share investment or operational decisions, but the NSR program requires looking at planning to determine whether projects should be aggregated.  The new test should help reduce some of these difficulties.

     

    The new test is not a panacea, however.  As the letter makes clear, each approved permitting authority retains considerable discretion.  How the memo plays out in practice will be interesting to watch.

     

     

    Please reload

    Our Recent Posts

    EPA Finalizes Revised "Ambient Air" Guidelines

    December 7, 2019

    EPA Limits Meadowbrook and Ameresco Scope

    November 25, 2019

    NSR Law Blog at A&WMA Webinars

    November 4, 2019

    Please reload

    Archive

    December 2019

    November 2019

    October 2019

    September 2019

    August 2019

    July 2019

    June 2019

    April 2019

    March 2019

    February 2019

    December 2018

    November 2018

    October 2018

    September 2018

    August 2018

    July 2018

    June 2018

    May 2018

    April 2018

    March 2018

    February 2018

    January 2018

    December 2017

    November 2017

    October 2017

    September 2017

    August 2017

    July 2017

    June 2017

    May 2017

    April 2017

    March 2017

    February 2017

    January 2017

    Please reload

    1990 NSR Workshop Manual

    2017 A&WMA NSR Manual

    ADEC

    ADEM

    AERMOD

    Abstention

    Air Permitting

    Albuquerque

    Ambient Air

    Appeal

    Appendix W

    BACT

    BAE

    Background Concentration

    Bernalillo

    CAMx

    CDOH

    CMAQ

    Citizen Suit

    Common control

    Compliance

    Cooperative Federalism

    Critical Air Quality Threshol

    DCO

    Demand Growth Exclusion

    EPA

    Emissions Unit

    Enforcement

    Environmental Law

    GA EPD

    GHG

    IEPA

    IPAPC

    Intermittent Sources

    Jorden Hiser Joy

    MCAQMD

    MDE

    MERPs

    Minor NSR

    Modeling

    Modeling Domain

    NNSR

    NSR

    NSR Manual

    National Program Manager Guidance

    Nearby Sourc

    New Source Review

    PAL

    PM2.5

    PSD

    PSD Enforcement

    Preclude public access

    Precursors

    Program Approval

    Project Aggregation

    Pruitt

    Reactivation

    Receptor Grid

    Redefine Source

    SCAQMD

    Source determination

    Step 2 PSD

    Tribal NSR

    VCAPC

    Please reload

    Tags