On the Docket
NRECA Opposes Pole Regulation Effort
NRECA has told a federal appeals court that it should uphold a lower court decision and reject a lawsuit to subject tens of millions of treated-wood utility poles to environmental permitting and compliance programs.
A federal lawsuit could determine whether treated-wood poles should be regulated under environmental laws. (Photo By: Shutterstock)
In an Oct. 13 filing with other trade groups, the association said a ruling in support of regulating utility poles by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would create a costly administrative nightmare.
The stakes are enormous―electric cooperatives own and maintain about 37 million poles, according to NRECA estimates, and that number is climbing every year.
“The potential reach of any decision requiring permits … if widely applied, is staggering,” according to the brief, signed for NRECA by Rae Cronmiller, environmental counsel.
The closely watched case, Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., centers on whether poles treated with preservatives should fall under the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act because the chemicals might run off and contaminate bodies of water.
A U.S. District Court in California ruled in March that the foundation failed to prove utility poles are a “point source” that conveys pollutants, like pipes, ditches and channels. That means they don’t fall under the permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act, the court said.
NRECA, joining with several trade associations, including the Edison Electric Institute, the North American Wood Pole Council and the Utility Water Act Group, asked the appeals court to side with the district court’s ruling.
While a reversal of the district court’s decision would apply only to poles in northern California, where the lawsuit originated, its reach could be nationwide if other courts adopted the same rationale, according to the brief.
“Millions of existing installations could end up being removed and placed in landfills and, if feasible, replaced with concrete or steel alternatives―the construction, transportation, and installation of which would come with their own significant environmental impacts,” the trade groups said in the filing.
Additionally, they added, the Environmental Protection Agency has already reviewed, registered and regulated the treatment preservatives at the heart of the case.
They also told the appellate court that the lower court ruled correctly in holding that the poles do not constitute solid waste, which could trigger additional regulations.