ILNews

Ethanol plant emissions suit may be bound for Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Indiana’s ethanol industry faces an uncertain regulatory environment and likely more stringent emissions standards after a recent Indiana Court of Appeals ruling. A state agency will ask the Indiana Supreme Court to hear the case, as several corn-to-fuel plant operators also are expected to do.

The Court of Appeals this month denied a rehearing in Natural Resources Defense Council v. POET Biorefining-Cloverdale LLC et al., 49A02-1205-MI-423. The court ruled for NRDC, holding that Indiana could not permit ethanol plants to operate in a category allowing annual emissions of up to 250 tons of airborne pollutants. The plants instead should be in a category allowing up to 100 tons, the court held.

NRDC and the permitting agency, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, agree that the state was following guidance from the federal Environmental Protection Agency when it issued permits for a few plants at the 250-ton threshold. The EPA in 2007 determined that ethanol plants should not be considered “chemical process plants” that are subject to the lower emission standard.

The issue, though, is whether IDEM was allowed to grant permits to ethanol plants adopting that federal guidance without first getting formal EPA approval for a change in its state implementation plan as required under the Clean Air Act.

“Other states have not been doing the same thing that Indiana has,” said Ben Longstreth, a Washington attorney for NRDC, explaining why the national organization brought suit here. “Indiana is unique in that it started issuing permits at a different level without changing its state implementation plan.”

According to NRDC, the primary air pollutant from fuel-grade ethanol plants is particulate matter (soot), but other emissions may include volatile organic compounds and greenhouse gases such as nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Longstreth said NRDC has members in Indiana who’ve complained about emissions from ethanol plants.

The Office of Environmental Adjudication within IDEM determined that when the agency issued permits to some plants in 2010, it should have categorized them as chemical process plants. A Marion Superior judge reversed that finding, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the state improperly permitted plants in Cloverdale, Marion and North Manchester when, following EPA guidance, it didn’t classify them as chemical process plants.

But Betsy Zlatos, program counsel for the Office of Air Quality at IDEM, said the agency is in a Catch-22. IDEM did file a proposed revision with the EPA that adopted the federal agency’s guidance saying fuel-grade ethanol plants don’t

have to be treated as chemical process plants. Zlatos said the EPA has been sitting on the state’s request for almost two years.

“We’re at the mercy of the approval system,” Zlatos said. She confirmed the department will ask the Supreme Court to grant transfer in the case, and other attorneys familiar with the suit say the ethanol plant operators also are likely to appeal.

“We’re hoping the Supreme Court will get a feel for what’s going on. We want to follow the law,” she said, noting that IDEM did everything it was required to do and shouldn’t be penalized because the EPA dragged its feet on a plan adopting its own language.

Nevertheless, Judge Melissa May wrote for the Court of Appeals panel that without approval from the EPA, the state could not issue permits as it did.

“The issue before us is whether the State could properly exclude fuel-grade ethanol production plants from the category of ‘chemical process plants’ without Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of a modification to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). As it could not, the ethanol plants remain ‘chemical process plants,’ and we must reverse the trial court,” May wrote.

The opinion also noted the EPA’s 2007 guidance on ethanol facilities is the subject of federal litigation in the D.C. Circuit Court. That IDEM promulgated a new rule and submitted it to the feds “was not enough – EPA approval … was required,” May wrote for the Court of Appeals.

Longstreth said EPA is taking a fresh look at emissions standards for ethanol plants.

“In part, the issue is about pollution from these plants, but also the issue is to make sure the system of cooperative federalism between EPA and the states are acting together works,” Longstreth said.

ethanolAttorneys representing the plant operators in the case did not respond to requests for comment. But Frank Deveau, co-chair of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP’s environmental practice, said he believes the plant operators will appeal.

“It seems like the Court of Appeals may have been hypertechnical in its enforcement of procedures,” said Deveau, who isn’t involved in this case but has experience representing ethanol plant operators in the sighting process. “I don’t think this is going to be left at the 100-ton limit.”

Some other states aren’t required to go through the state implementation plan process as Indiana does and, therefore, can rely directly on EPA rules and guidance when approving ethanol plants. Deveau said that if the Court of Appeals opinion were to stand, it could have a negative effect on the industry in Indiana.

“Costs would increase such that the industry, if I was looking to locate a facility, I would go to a different state and just go by the EPA rule,” he said.

Zlatos agreed, saying the ruling “puts ethanol plants in our state at a distinct disadvantage.”

Longstreth argued those concerns are overstated. “In our experience, many ethanol plants have operated many years in Indiana under the (100-ton) threshold and should be able to operate under that threshold.

“If it’s a larger plant, they just have to make sure they’re employing the best pollution controls,” he said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT