Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Nonprofits are Permitted to Defend Pennsylvania’s Membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
- Massachusetts Appeals Court Affirms Cleanup Option with Activity and Use Exemption and No Award for Diminution in Value
Topics
- Title VI
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- ISRA
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
In an issue of first impression, in Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327), No. A-3616-20, 2023 WL 5614411 (N. J. Super. Ct. Aug. 31, 2023), the New Jersey Superior Court rejected the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”)’s interpretation of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (the “Highlands Act”) and found that a permittee’s project upgrade must be “routine” to be exempted from the strict permitting requirements of the Highlands Act.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline company, LLC (“Tennessee”) owns and operates a natural gas transmission system stretching from the Gulf states to New England. In order to increase the capacity of its pipeline system, Tennessee planned to construct a new station and appurtenant facilities in West Milford, New Jersey. Because the compressor station was to be located in the Highlands Preservation Area, it was subjected to the stringent water and natural resource protection standards of the Highlands Act. The DEP issued a Highlands Applicability Determination (“HAD”) to Tennessee exempting construction of the new compressor station from permitting review under N.J.S.A 13:20-28(a)(11) (“Exemption 11”). Exemption 11 relieves a public utility from having to obtain a Highlands Preservation Area Approval for "routine maintenance and operations, rehabilitation, preservation, reconstruction, repair, or upgrade of public utility lines, rights of way or systems” so long as “the activity is consistent with the goals and purposes of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 to 35. DEP issued the HAD without determining whether the new compressor station qualifies as a “routine upgrade” to Tennessee’s existing gas pipeline system because DEP maintained that “routine” in Exemption 11 modifies only “maintenance and operations” rather than “upgrade.” Several environmental advocacy groups appealed the HAD arguing that under basic rules of statutory construction an upgrade must be “routine” to qualify for the HAD, and the compressor station constituted a massive expansion in operations.
The court agreed with the appellants, finding that based on the language of the statute, the statutory context, and the history of the Highlands Act, the legislature only intended to exempt routine upgrades, not all upgrades, from the statutory requirements. The court noted that while ordinarily it accords substantial deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute the agency is charged with enforcing, no deference is required when that interpretation is contrary to the statutory language, or if the agency’s interpretation undermines the Legislature’s intent. Referencing the preamble of the Highlands Act, the court held that the Legislature’s intent was to protect and preserve an “area of exceptional natural resource value,” and therefore exemptions from the Highlands Act must be strictly construed.
The court held it was not plain from the language of the statute whether “routine” modified only “maintenance and operations” or each noun in the list, including “upgrade.” Accordingly, while criticizing DEP and Tennessee’s analysis as “myopically focused on sentence structure,” the court looked to the legislative intent, holding the intention of the Highlands Act was to “prohibit or limit to the maximum extent possible construction or development which is incompatible with preservation.” N.J.S.A. 13:20-10(b)(9).
Ultimately the court held, “[g]uided by the Legislature’s express declaration ‘that it is in the public interest of all the citizens of the State’ that the Preservation area be subject ‘to stringent water and natural resource protection standards, policies, planning and regulation,’ [] we cannot accept the Department and Tennessee’s position that the Legislature intended Exemption 11 for ‘the routine maintenance and operations, rehabilitation, preservation, reconstruction, repair, or upgrade of public utility lines, rights of way, or systems in the Preservation Area to exempt any upgrade a utility might propose and, specifically, to exempt Tennessee’s construction of a new compressor station and appurtenant facilities, including its own electric substation, at a cost of over $100 million with no showing it constituted only a ‘routine upgrade’ of its gas pipeline system.” Accordingly, the court vacated the HAD and remanded to DEP to consider whether the proposed compressor station can qualify as a “routine upgrade” to its pipeline system.
In addition to narrowing the exemptions available to permittees under the Highlands Act, this decision appears to follow the recent trend in cases such as Sackett v. EPA demonstrating that courts are no longer automatically deferring to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, particularly where the court finds the agency’s interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent.