Cleaning Up: Resolving Your Environmental Liabilities with other People’s Money

Environmental Litigation

David E. Cranston, chair of the Environmental Law Group, was published in Smart Business Magazine regarding how clients can avoid being stuck with cleanup costs in environmental contamination cases.

A client of ours faced significant costs in cleaning up property contaminated by the operations of its tenants many years earlier. The client’s former counsel who opined the pursuing claims against the tenants, who were mostly out of business, was not worth the time or money. Our investigation indicated otherwise. We learned that a tenant with a small scrap operation in the 1950s had changed names, and its business, through a series of transactions, was acquired by a large publicly traded company. Another tenant who was no longer doing business had significant insurance assets. After prosecuting the claims that our client was about to abandon, we recovered several million dollars to pay for the cleanup.

Continue reading →

California Air Resources Board Adopts Cap and Trade Regulations

Climate Change

Recently, the Polluting StacksCalifornia Air Resources Board or ARB adopted its long-anticipated regulations for controlling greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) through a market-based cap and trade system. California’s regulations represent a significant development in the regulation GHGs. California could well set the model for similar controls in other states and will certainly stoke the nationwide debate over GHG regulations.

The ARB will set caps based on 2012 emissions for the state’s largest GHG emitters, including power plants, refineries, and other large industrial facilities. The cap will decline each year. Other sources will be phased in over time. The cap to be set, and the distribution of allowances, will be subject to considerable debate. The allowances will be distributed without cost early in the process, but will transition to an auction based system administered by the ARB.
Continue reading →

Owners at the Time That Cleanup Costs are Incurred are “Current” Owners Under CERCLA, Court Says

Environmental Litigation

In another recent decision on the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq., the Ninth Circuit clarified that the “current” owner is the owner at the time that cleanup costs are incurred for purposes of imposing liability under the act. Enacted thirty years ago, CERCLA is a federal law that creates a scheme for imposing strict liability for the investigation and remediation of contaminated property.

WetlandsCERCLA imposes cleanup liability on “current” owners of the contaminated property regardless of when the contamination actually occurred. For example, if a person owns a property that is contaminated with a hazardous substance, under CERCLA they are responsible to cleanup the property even if they did not cause the contamination. Past owners are only responsible if the contamination of the property occurred during their ownership.
Continue reading →