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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT