Carbon Emissions

'Deferral Rule' is Derailed - Biogenic Greenhouse Gas Emitters Stand By to Be Regulated

July 19, 2013 09:27
by J. Wylie Donald

The greenhouse gas rule you’ve never heard of, the Deferral Rule, was shot down (barely) by the D.C. Circuit last week.  See Center for Biological Diversity v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 11-1101 (D.C. Cir., July 12, 2013).   The opinion offers a wonderful primer on greenhouse gas rulemaking and describes the Timing Rule, the Tailpipe Rule and the Tailoring Rule.  It also explains in great detail numerous doctrines concerning agency rulemaking.  And it balances on the edge of a knife.  There is an opinion (Tatel, J.).  There is a concurring opinion (Kavanaugh, J.) that joins the opinion but goes even further, and which additionally states that “I believe, contrary to this Circuit’s precedent, that the PSD statute does not cover carbon dioxide.”  Opinion at 24.  And last, there is a detailed dissent (Henderson, J.) that addresses the arguments of the opinion to good effect.  If one is looking for definitive guidance this opinion will not suffice.

Even without the Court’s decision, the rule would have died a year from now anyway.  The rule we are talking about is found at 76 Fed. Reg. 43,490, Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs.  To those less tied to formality, it is the Deferral Rule.  Under the Deferral Rule, EPA delayed for three years regulation as stationary sources under the Clean Air Act emitters of “biogenic”  carbon dioxide while it further assessed the subject.  Biogenic CO2, is biologically derived CO2, as opposed to CO2 derived from fossil fuels.  It includes emissions from burning landfill methane, combustion of municipal biologically derived solid waste, fermentation processes for ethanol manufacturing and the burning of biomass. 

Biogenic CO2 is not discernably different in the atmosphere from that derived from fossil fuels.  Its difference lies in its context.  Biogenic CO2, when considered over time, may have a neutral or even reducing effect on total CO2 emissions because, for example, while the burning of biomass releases CO2, the growing of biomass pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequesters it.  On the whole, facilities burning biomass might actually result in less CO2 emissions.  The purpose of the Deferral Rule was to permit EPA to spend some more time studying biogenic CO2 so as to avoid issuing regulations that accomplished little.

In its rulemaking EPA offered three doctrines as justifications for its rule:  the de minimis, one-step-at-a-time, and administrative necessity doctrines.  The de minimis doctrine allows an administrative agency to grant regulatory exemptions ”when the burdens of regulation yield a gain of trivial or no value.”  Opinion at 13.  The one-step-at-a-time doctrine allows an agency to proceed in a “piecemeal fashion.”  Id.  And the administrative necessity doctrine allows an agency to “avoid implementing a statute by showing that attainment of the statutory objectives is impossible.” Id. at 15-16.  The absurd results rule, which EPA set forth in its brief, rejects the interpretation of a statute that would produce an absurd result.  Id. at 17. 

The Court rejected all four theories.  The de minimis doctrine only applied to permanent exemptions, as the EPA conceded.  Id. at 13. Accordingly, it did not apply.  The dissent disagreed.  It saw the exception as available, particularly when the statute “expressly does not regulate “minor” sources that cause little harm because they release below-threshold levels of pollutants.”  Id. at 35.

Application of the one-step-at-a-time doctrine was found to be arbitrary and capricious because EPA did not set out how it intended to achieve the statutory goal:  “We simply have no idea what EPA believes constitutes ‘full compliance’ with the statute.  In other words, the Deferral Rule is one step towards … what?  Without a clear answer to that question, EPA has no basis for invoking the one-step-at-a-time doctrine.”  Id. at 15.  The dissent was not buying:  “just as EPA proceeded gradually in regulating GHGs under the Tailoring Rule, EPA has delayed its regulation of a specific GHG via the Deferral Rule.  The fact that EPA is required to take action does not preclude it from phasing in the action using the step-at-a-time method.”  Id. at 33.

The Court found fault with the administrative necessity theory because EPA did not explore what the Court referred to as the “middle-ground option,” requiring permitting except where the source took steps to reduce its biogenic CO2 emissions.  Because EPA had an “obligation to adopt the narrowest exemption possible, it should have explained why it rejected an option that would have reduced emissions from sources the Deferral Rule permanently exempts.”  Id. at 16-17. 

Last, there was the absurd results rule, which EPA sought to apply “because ‘emissions of CO2 derived from certain forms of biomass may not only fail to endanger public health and welfare, but in fact may benefit the public by reducing the net emissions of CO2,’ …[and] it would run afoul of congressional intent to regulate them.” Id. at 17-18. The Court found, however, that EPA did not utilize this rule in its rulemaking, notwithstanding passing references.  Simply put, “[t]hese passing references [fell] far short of satisfying EPA’s ‘fundamental’ obligation to ‘set forth the reasons for its actions.’”  Id. at 18.

The concurrence, as noted above, did not believe CO2 was even regulated by the statute.  But that had been previously decided to the contrary and “that’s water over the dam in this Court.”  Id. at 25.  As to the issue before him, that answer was easy:  “EPA simply lacks statutory authority to distinguish biogenic carbon dioxide from other forms of carbon dioxide.”  Id. at 21.  In sum, EPA was required to address emissions of CO2 and there was no part of the statute that allowed “EPA to exempt  … emissions of a covered air pollutant just because the effects of those sources’ emissions on the atmosphere might be offset in some other way.”  Id. at 22. 

The last point raised by the dissent, in our view, sums up the entire case:  what was the point?  The dissent would have dismissed because the case was not ripe.  First, it needed to be fit for review.  The rule was temporary and by July 2014 EPA would either have let the rule expire or issued a new rule, one that the petitioners might like, but certainly one that would have been informed by the additional three years of research.  Id. at 38.  Second, deferring decision would work no real hardship to petitioners.  Only one facility had been identified as being able to avoid permitting as a result of the Deferral Rule.  The dissent pointed out that the facility enjoyed no more than the previous status quo:  “the hardship of which the petitioners complain is hyperbolically overblown.  The Deferral Rule does not deregulate scores of polluters.  Instead, it temporarily maintains the theretofore long-time status quo for a limited number of stationary sources that – until July 1, 2011 – had never been subject to regulation as a major source under PSD.”  Id. at 42.

In our view, substantively, this decision accomplished little.  A rule that was going to expire next year, expires this year.  Parties seeking to rely on a decision by esteemed arbiters of the law find the arbiters completely at odds with one another.  But that may be the true significance of Center for Biological Diversity.  Notwithstanding that “the task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important at the national and international level,” id. at 25, consistency of approach is by no means assured in any arena, including the courts.

Carbon Dioxide | Carbon Emissions | Greenhouse Gases | Regulation

Top 6 at 6: Highlights of the Top Climate Change Stories in the First Half of 2013

July 1, 2013 00:01
by J. Wylie Donald

Another six months have passed and it is time for our semi-annual look at climate change and its intersection with the law.  Here are some highlights of the last six months:

1.  The Administration’s Focus.  After months of silence in the 2012 presidential campaign, President Obama rejuvenated his administration’s commitment to addressing climate change.  We heard in his inaugural address:   “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.”  He carried this forward in his State of the Union address less than a month later: “I urge this Congress to get together, pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago.  But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.  (Applause.)  I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”     And in a speech this past Tuesday the promises took another step toward reality when the President outlined his “climate action plan.” 

Recognizing the logjam in Congress, the Administration's plan is based on authority the executive branch already has. The salient points include:  1) further restrictions on powerplant greenhouse gas emissions (notably addressing coal); 2) promotion of resilience and adaptation with respect to weather-related calamities; 3) additional permitting of renewable energy facilities on public lands; and 4) engagement in the international arena on climate change such as working out a global free trade agreement on clean energy technologies.   The goal is a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17%.  The Wall Street Journal called these “sweeping climate policies.”  We will see; with no new authority, Gina McCarthy’s nomination to head EPA held up, and the bounty of natural gas unleashed by fracking, greenhouse gas reduction may be achieved by the market, see Leveraging Natural Gas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions,  not governmental efforts.  

2. 400 PPM.  On May 9, Mauna Loa Observatory of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory reported that the average weekly value of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the observatory had reached 400 ppm, a level unsurpassed in 3 million years.  The world collectively ignored the number, treating it more like an insignificant decimal, 0.0004, which it was (a decimal, not insignificant).  We don’t think anyone will dispute that there are three ways to interpret this number:  it’s bad, it’s good, it’s neither.  Climate scientists are unanimous that it’s bad.  There is nothing saying it’s good.  Which means the justification for not taking action on climate change is that the ever increasing levels, and the ever increasing rate of accumulation, of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (see the graphs by the observatory), are of no consequence.  US Airways will probably side with the climate scientists - it canceled 18 flights as a result of the record-breaking temperatures in the southwest this past weekend. 

As a footnote, we note that Mauna Loa’s number is an average, and is subject to refinement.  As it turned out, the 400 ppm number was refined a few weeks later to 399.89.  

3.  Free Trade.  In 2009 Ontario enacted its Green Energy Act to promote renewable energy in the province.  One approach is the adoption of a feed-in tariff (mandatory above-market rates for electricity derived from renewable resources).  This had successfully been pioneered in Germany.  Ontario legislators also saw the opportunity to spur job growth by giving subsidies to businesses that sourced their wind turbines and solar panels in Ontario (i.e., “domestic content”).

Japan jumped on this protectionism immediately and sought consultations with Canada under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization. The consultations were ineffective and Japan requested a panel to hear the dispute concerning Ontario’s “domestic content requirements," with which renewable energy generators were required to comply "in the design and construction of electricity generation facilities in order to qualify for guaranteed prices” under the feed-in tariff program.

Last December the panel ruled in favor of Japan on the domestic content requirements. Canada appealed and this May the appellate panel affirmed. Ontario's energy minister has confirmed that Ontario will abide by the WTO decision and revise its Green Energy Act.   We conclude that free trade remains colorblind.

4. Climate Change Liability Lawsuits.  For seven years now, the first wave of climate change liability lawsuits have roiled the legal waters.  It bears remembering that in October 2009, the plaintiffs in these cases rode the crest of the wave.  The Second Circuit had reversed the trial court’s dismissal in Connecticut v. American Electric Power (AEP), and the Fifth Circuit likewise overturned the Southern District of Mississippi’s dismissal of Comer v. Murphy Oil USA.  Plaintiffs had standing; the political question doctrine did not apply.

Things have gone badly for the plaintiffs since.  All readers of this blog know of the Supreme Court’s decision in AEP, stifling the plaintiffs’ case under the doctrine of displacement.  This year two more decisions confirmed the Judicial Branch’s hostility to these claims.  Comer made it back to the Fifth Circuit, where dismissal was summarily affirmed on the doctrine of res judicata.  And the last of the original quadriga, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., found its petition for certiorari denied in April,  thus leaving the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of dismissal unchanged.

The only reed left for the plaintiffs is the granting of a petition for certiorari in Comer, a prospect we deem unlikely, if only because the appeal would be based on a purely procedural question of little likelihood of being repeated and of little relevance to the larger climate change issues.

5.  Ursus Maritimus.  On March 1 the D.C. Circuit in In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation  affirmed the district court’s dismissal of challenges to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s designation of the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because “due to the effects of global climate change, the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species and face the threat of extinction within the foreseeable future.” The polar bear’s friends (environmental groups) sought to have the bear listed as “endangered.”  Ursus maritimus’s less-than-friends (the State of Alaska and hunting groups), urged that no listing was appropriate.  The standard in such reviews is relatively simple:  “Our principal responsibility here is to determine, in light of the record considered by the agency, whether the Listing Rule is a product of reasoned decisionmaking.”  The Court found that it was, holding specifically the the Listing Rule rests on a three-part thesis: the polar bear is dependent upon sea ice for its survival; sea ice is declining; and climatic changes have and will continue to dramatically reduce the extent and quality of Arctic sea ice to a degree sufficiently grave to jeopardize polar bear populations. See Listing Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. at 28,212. No part of this thesis is disputed and we find that FWS’s conclusion – that the polar bear is threatened within the meaning of the ESA – is reasonable and adequately supported by the record.”

As arctic resource development progresses as the ice retreats, the polar bear's Endangered Species Act listing is sure to take on larger significance, both as a model for the preservation of other arctic species, and as a tool to block development.

6.  Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). On June 13 the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in Association of Taxicab Operators USA v. City of Dallas. In the case the local taxicab organization challenged a city ordinance that allowed CNG-fueled taxicabs “head-of-the-line” privileges at Love Field in downtown Dallas. Plaintiff's theory was that section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits states and their political subdivisions from adopting emission standards for motor vehicles, preempted the ordinance either directly or by implication. The Fifth Circuit did not agree. Traditional police powers of the state were preserved to the state by section 209(d) of the Clean Air Act. More importantly, an ordinance granting head-of-the-line privileges, on its face did not set an emission standard, as required by the statute.  As to any implied preemption, the ordinance may have influenced taxicab operators to alter their behavior, but it did not compel them to do so. Less than 7% of Dallas's taxicabs served Love Field and the only place CNG cabs had head-of-the-line privileges was at Love Field; there were plenty of other places for gasoline powered cabs to pick up fares. Accordingly implied preemption did not apply either. 

One of our themes in a world beset by climate change is that there will be winners and there will be losers. Little did taxicab operators know they would be both.

The Tar Sands Debate Comes to Delaware

June 25, 2013 11:49
by Jameson Tweedie

Across the country, environmental organizations have made the transport and processing of crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada a focal point in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions, citing higher carbon emissions of oil from the tar sands (although that assertion is disputed).  The proposed Keystone XL pipeline currently being reviewed by the State Department is perhaps the most visible example of this fight, with numerous environmental organizations lining up to oppose it (for example, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org and others), with some advocating civil disobedience in their efforts to defeat the pipeline.  (Slightly less high profile is the Northern Gateway pipeline – which would transport crude from Alberta through British Colombia to the west coast for overseas export – now opposed by the government of British Columbia.)  While the Keystone XL debate may not directly impact Delaware, it appears the focus on tar sands crude, and the controversy that seems to follow it, has arrived in Delaware in what might otherwise have been considered an economic success story:  PBF Energy’s Delaware City Refinery.

The Delaware City Refinery was shuttered in 2009, but after being purchased by PBF Energy in 2010 – reportedly after significant personal effort by Governor Jack Markell – the Refinery reopened bringing hundreds of jobs back to the state.  According to PBF, the Delaware City Refinery is “one of the largest and most complex refineries on the East Coast” and employs more than 400 full time employees.  (For comparison, the Delaware City and nearby Paulsboro, N.J. Refineries can process a combined total of 370,000 barrels per day; the Keystone XL pipeline would carry up to 830,000 barrels per day.)  The Refinery, however, has encountered a laundry list of headlines in recent months, including a violation notice from the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for unauthorized releases of 527,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide, complaints from nearby residents after a separate incident with the Refinery’s pollution control system “sent dark smoke billowing from a stack at the plant,” and disputes about the significantly expanded rail car delivery of crude oil, including tar sands crude, to the Refinery.  The expansion of the Refinery’s rail yard in particular met with significant environmental opposition because of the use of Canadian tar sands crude to supply the Refinery, and the subsequent shipment by barge of such crude up the Delaware River to PBF’s nearby Paulsboro, New Jersey refinery. 

The most recent disputes are over the facility’s air emissions permits.  One permit process, for the Refinery's Title V permit, included the expected, if unexpectedly high, profile:  Those in support, including a rally of hundreds of refinery workers and supporters before the public DNREC hearing; those in opposition, including an opposing rally by groups opposing the permit; and the DNREC hearing, moved into a larger venue to accommodate the unusually large crowd and reportedly attended by nearly 100 police officers.   The issue is pending before DNREC.  Following the roughly contemporaneous issuance of another permit (PDF), the Air Pollution Control permit for the Marine Vapor Recovery System at the Refinery, however, the Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Delaware Audubon Society filed challenges to DNREC’s permit with the state’s Environmental Appeals Board (PDF) and with the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board (PDF) based in part on assertions that the permit violates Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act.  (The Sierra Club and Audubon Society are represented by the Widener University Environmental Law Clinic, which is also representing the Sierra Club in a currently pending appeal (PDF at 2) to the Delaware Supreme Court of another decision relating to interpretation of the Coastal Zone Act.)

Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act (7 Del. C. sec. 7001, et. seq.) was signed into law in 1971 and, as its name suggests, prohibits certain land uses within a zone along Delaware’s coast.  The Act, however, grandfathered in certain activities already occurring within the coastal zone.  Of particular relevance to the Sierra Club’s and Audubon Society’s appeal is the Act’s prohibition on “offshore gas, liquid or solid bulk product transfer facilities” (except those grandfathered in as “nonconforming uses” already occurring in 1971).  See 7. Del. C. sec. 7003.  The appeal, in part, asserts that the Refinery’s expanded rail yard and barge shipment system is a bulk product transfer facility and therefore impermissible under the Coastal Zone Act.  Alternatively, if the operation is otherwise a grandfathered nonconforming use, the appeal asserts that the crude oil transfer is nonetheless impermissible due to the expansion of the refinery’s footprint outside of the permissible grandfathered footprint established in 1971.  The Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board has scheduled a public hearing on the appeal of the Marine Vapor Recovery System permit for July 16, 2013.

Adding a slight flavor of intrigue to the dispute is a recent report by the Wilmington News Journal that DNREC issued the permit despite warnings to DNREC from the Delaware Attorney General’s Office that the permit may violate the Coastal Zone Act.  According to the News Journal’s report, “Gov. Jack Markell and top state environmental officials have apparently snubbed and suppressed a warning from state attorneys about possible regulatory violations at the Delaware City Refinery, opting instead to seek outside legal guidance on contested changes at the 210,000 barrel per day plant.”  The News Journal, citing unnamed state officials, reported that the Attorney General’s Office had provided DNREC with a memorandum providing a “detailed list of the refinery’s potential Coastal Zone Act conflicts,” apparently including the refinery’s expanded rail yard and the barge shipments to PBF's Paulsboro Refinery.   

Regardless of the News Journal’s report, however, the dispute serves as a reminder of the nationwide stage on which the climate change debate, and by proxy the fight over Canadian tar sands crude, is now fought.   

 

Carbon Dioxide | Carbon Emissions | Climate Change

Fracking Zoning Case Seeks Review by New York's Highest Court

June 8, 2013 17:27
by J. Wylie Donald


Columbia Law School convened a panel on hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") yesterday. One of the subtopics was its effect on climate change mitigation.

Professor Michael Gerrard laid out the pluses and minuses. On the plus side:  burning natural gas yields about one-half the amount of carbon dioxide as burning coal for the same amount of energy. This has been demonstrated by the 9% drop in United States CO2 emissions in the 5 years from 2007 to 2011.  Confirming Professor Gerard's statistics is a recent report by the Center for Climate Energy Solutions, Leveraging Natural Gas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. On the minus side:  natural gas is composed in substantial part of methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and methane leakage occurs in the production, processing and distribution of natural gas; the low price of natural gas depresses the market for nuclear, solar, wind and other greenhouse-gas-free energy sources; and natural gas greenhouse gas emissions, while better than coal, are still greenhouse gas emissions. 

Theoretically, one could assess scientifically this fracking algebra. But, as might be imagined, the future of fracking is not likely to be determined based on a balancing of pluses and minuses. Politics will be central and for the moment those politics are distinctly local.  Fracking's future in many places hinges on the ability of local zoning authorities to zone fracking out of the local community.  On Tuesday, the New York Court of Appeals was asked to join this fray, when fracking supporters filed a petition for review.  In the case, In re Norse Energy, a panel of the Appellate Division considered a local zoning ordinance that banned "all activities related to the exploration for, and the production or storage of, natural gas and petroleum." Petitioner Norse Energy argued the ordinance was preempted by the express terms of ECL 23-0303 of New York's Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law, which provides that "[t]he provisions of this article shall supersede all local laws or ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and solution mining industries; but shall not supersede local government jurisdiction over local roads or the rights of local governments under the real property tax law."  The panel concluded that this language was meant to address the details of mining, but did not reach the traditional power of a community over land use.  Accordingly, there was no express preemption.  The court further found that there was no implied preemption either.

In our view, reasonable minds could differ.  But also in our view, the Appellate Division decision does not matter yet; it would have been appealed by whichever side lost. 

The Court of Appeals, if it takes the case, will have to engage in statutory construction.  We cannot read the tea leaves there.  We hope, however, that the Court keeps the future in mind.   More than 170 municipalities in New York have enacted some sort of limitation on fracking within their borders.  The Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Law forbids activities that lead to "waste," defined to include:   "The locating, spacing, drilling, equipping, operating, or producing  of  any  oil  or  gas well or wells in a manner which causes or tends to  cause reduction in the quantity of oil  or  gas  ultimately  recoverable from  a  pool  under  prudent  and proper operations, or which causes or  tends to cause unnecessary or excessive surface loss or  destruction  of oil or gas."   A patchwork of municipalities with zoning ordinances barring fracking, will be physically juxtaposed with a patchwork of municipalities permitting fracking.  After some time, proponents undoubtedly will have the technical data to support the conclusion that "waste" is occurring and with those facts will return to seek enforcement of a statute forbidding regulation of the "locating ... of any oil or gas well" that causes "reduction in the quantity of oil or gas ultimately recoverable."  The Court should consider how its decision now will affect that future situation  (unless, of course, New York's legislature acts first).

Carbon Dioxide | Carbon Emissions | Regulation

Act II at the Obama EPA: Gina McCarthy (is predicted) To Take the Helm

March 1, 2013 00:43
by J. Wylie Donald


The President gave an indication of his environmental focus in his inaugural address, and then again in his state of the union speech. The focus would be on climate change. 

Central to that focus would be the EPA Adminstrator, but that would not be Lisa Jackson who tendered her resignation at the end of 2012.  If Washington gossip is any guide, Ms. Jackson's replacement will be Gina McCarthy, the current head of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.

We went looking to see if we could draw a bead on where Ms. McCarthy might lead EPA.  We found a recent speech and it was directly on point. On February 21, Ms. McCarthy addressed an audience at the Georgetown Law Center at a conference on Climate Change and Energy Policy. (The conference was videotaped. Ms. McCarthy has the podium from about 4:50 to 5:30 if you are interested.)  

Ms. McCarthy has a reputation of being something of a pragmatist. Her talk was consistent with that. A brief summary might be:  Climate change is here and we have to deal with it, but in addressing carbon dioxide there can be great benefits from doing so in the form of reducing pollution, increasing efficiency and empowering communities.

Pollution reductions will come in at least three forms. First, if more renewable energy sources are developed, there will be less emissions. Second, if production and use is made more efficient there will be less emissions. Third, if production is focused on fossil fuels that emit less pollutants when burned (that is, not coal), there will be less emissions.  We note that this strategy is already at work.  The growth of wind and solar power has been meteoric.  Ms. McCarthy promoted electric cars, which are far more efficient than gasoline-powered ones (although she ignored compressed natural gas vehicles, which are low emission and have some compelling advantages over electric cars).  And we have covered before  the catastrophe for coal signaled by the proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, which forecasts not a single new coal plant through 2030.

Significantly, or perhaps not, she did not mention fracking and the phenomenal recent growth in natural gas production.  That was surprising.  A recent Harvard Magazine article  summarized the pollution and greenhouse gas effects of the natural gas bonanza: 

The shift from coal to gas in the electricity sector has also yielded an environmental bonus—a significant reduction in emissions of CO2, because CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated using coal are more than double those produced using gas. … [T]he U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that domestic emissions of CO2 during the first quarter of 2012 fell to the lowest level recorded since 1992. An ancillary benefit of the coal-to-gas switch has been a significant reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide, the cause of acid rain, because many of the older coal-burning plants selectively idled by the price-induced fuel switch were not equipped to remove this pollutant from their stack gases.


Efficiency pervaded her remarks. A striking number is the $1.7 trillion she stated automobile fuel efficiency standards had saved consumers at the pump. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. EPA will help Americans make buildings, processes and communities more efficient.  According to Ms. McCarthy the EPA Climate Showcase Communities saved $19 million per year based in large part on efficiency.

We are somewhat troubled by the “eye of the beholder” syndrome exhibited here.  Certainly consumers saved money at the pump.  But they spent more at the car dealer.  How did they fare overall?  The answer depends on how long they owned their car and the price of gas.  According to research in 2012 by TrueCar.com for the New York Times, at $4/gallon “[e]xcept for two hybrids, the Prius and Lincoln MKZ, and the diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta TDI, the added cost of the fuel-efficient technologies is so high that it would take the average driver many years — in some cases more than a decade — to save money over comparable new models with conventional internal-combustion engines.”  

Ms. McCarthy’s vision of empowerment is through information.  If building owners get the knowledge of how to make their buildings more efficient, they will  because it makes sense to do so.  If communities are provided the relevant information, they will make enabling smart choices.  Indeed, she closed on the importance of information, referencing three sources.  First, EPA has now been collecting information on greenhouse gas emissions for two years.  That information is publicly available.  People should look at this because it identifies the sources of the climate change problem.  Electric utilities are far and away the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases (which is to say, all of us are because, with rare exceptions, all of us use electricity generated with fossil fuels).  

Second,  she touted the EPA’s 2012 report, Climate Change Indicators in the United States (18MB).  This is a valuable resource. Twenty-six “indicators” are assessed as to what they show about a world beset by climate change.  All are familiar with reduced ice sheets, reduced snowpack and higher average temperatures.  Less familiar is the documented increase in ragweed pollen season and retained ocean heat.  And the report is honest about what is not known.  Although 7000 Americans were reported to have died of heat-related illnesses in the last 30 years, trends have not been determined.  Although one might think that a hotter world would lead to more hurricanes, the data have not proven that yet.

Last, Ms. McCarthy praised government research into adaptation and the various reports issued and to be issued.

Some view agency heads in Washington as essentially valueless; talking heads, here today and gone tomorrow.  The bureaucracy was there when the new head arrived and will be there when the now old head leaves.  What this view misses is that the agency head can muster the agency’s resources in support of one initiative, argue for it on Capitol Hill, at the White House and in the press, and give the extra boost when the going gets rough.  Gina McCarthy was instrumental in building the northeast’s cap-and-trade program (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) in her native Connecticut.  Certainly, that idea on a national basis is percolating again.

Carbon Emissions | Climate Change | Regulation | Renewable Energy | Solar Energy

Top 6 at 12: Highlights of the Top Climate Change Stories in the Second Half of 2012

December 31, 2012 11:59
by J. Wylie Donald

2012 has drawn to a close.  We chronicle here six of the most significant stories on the climate change front in the last six months.  For those looking for hope that government is taking action to rein in greenhouse gas emissions, the focus is on California, where cap-and-trade stepped into reality with California's first emissions auction.  Nationally and internationally regulation is at a standstill or going backward.  In the courts, the climate change liability plaintiffs were pounded again as the Ninth Circuit confirmed the dismissal of Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp.  Responding to climate change, however, is a different story.  Superstorm Sandy was a wakeup call on adaptation and the impacts of extreme weather; the National Flood Insurance Program managed to obtain statutory authority to include climate change in its considerations.

1.  Superstorm Sandy –  Climatologists are confident that the changing climate will lead to more frequent and more severe storms.  Sandy, following Hurricane Irene the previous year, delivered on both predictions.   A nine-foot storm surge at Battery Park.  Transformers exploding and putting Manhattan into darkness.  The Hoboken PATH station  submerged.  $50 billion in damage.  Superstorm Sandy set records and was completely consistent with the concerns of proponents of climate change mitigation and adaptation.  Did it have anything to do with climate change or was it simply a chance confluence of events?  The weather pattern was unusual.  There was a hurricane (albeit fading), coupled with a nor’easter, intersecting with an arctic high pressure front, under a full moon.  Individually, those are independent of climate change.  But there was also a record lack of sea ice, which has a measured and observed effect on global atmospheric circulation, which could result in severe weather coming together more severely.  So quite possibly Sandy is a result of climate change.  More important than the academic debate, however, is the impact on adaptation.  Regardless of one’s views on climate change, Sandy demonstrated that a major metropolitan area is vulnerable to extreme weather.  Steps will be taken to flood-proof subways, bury electric lines, raise seawalls, improve evacuation plans  and emergency response,  etc.  All of these are part of the steps needed to adapt to climate change.   Whether it is acknowledged as linked to climate change or not (but see Bloomberg Business Week cover following Sandy:   “It’s Global Warming, Stupid!”), adaptation is going to happen. 

2.  Presidential Election - Climate change was an important part of the campaign:  "The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families."  The 2008 election campaign that is. It was a completely different position in 2012. Or maybe not different at all.  No one could tell because nobody was talking about it.  Even Sandy wasn't enough to propel climate change into the debate in the last week of campaigning.

3.  Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil - The last filed of the original quartet (American Electric Power, General Motors, Comer, and Kivalina) of climate change nuisance cases, Kivalina finally made it to a federal appellate court, where in September it met the same fate as its brethren:  dismissal affirmed.  Plaintiffs asked for rehearing.  The Ninth Circuit wasn't interested.  As of this writing, the only case left is Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, which is on appeal following its dismissal last March (for the second time) by the Southern District of Mississippi.  According to that court, plaintiffs lose for a wide variety of reasons:  standing, political question doctrine, res judicata, collateral estoppel, displacement, statute of limitations and proximate cause.   

4.  Cap-and-trade - California, alone among the fifty states, instituted its multi-industry full-fledged cap-and-trade program auctions in November.  All of its allowances for 2013 were sold at a price slightly above the mandated floor price of $10/ton.  Regulators and environmental groups hailed the auction as a success; some business groups were less enthusiastic.  The California Chamber of Commerce sued the California Air Resources Board to invalidate the auctions.  Meanwhile, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast continues with its allowances trading at the floor price, and with less than 2/3 of its allowances selling in its August and December auctions.  Some commentary concludes that it is time for RGGI to shut down as its CO2 emission goals have been met.    From where we sit, RGGI's success or failure can't be judged until its carbon trading is done in connection with  a robust economy.  The world economic malaise suppresses business, and with it, carbon dioxide emissions.  California may face the same issue.  

5.  National Flood Insurance Program Reform - Could a poisonously partisan Congress vote for this: 

(1) IN GENERAL- The Council shall consult with scientists and technical experts, other Federal agencies, States, and local communities to--(A) develop recommendations on how to--(i) ensure that flood insurance rate maps incorporate the best available climate science to assess flood risks; and (ii) ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency uses the best available methodology to consider the impact of--
(I) the rise in the sea level; ..."?  

Not the Congress we know.  Or so we thought.  Somehow, somewhere, someone put this into a draft, which made it into and out of a committee, ended up on the floor of both houses, survived two votes and came out as an enrolled bill for the president's signature.  The president signed it into law in July.  This was part of the miscellaneous section of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act  (aka the Transportation and Student Loan Bill), which may explain how this occurred.  In any event, climate change considerations are statutorily mandated as part of the NFIP.  42 USC § 4101a(d)(1).  We can expect a report by July 6, 2013.  Id. § 4101a(d)(1)(B).  Who'd have thunk? 

6.  Global GHG Regulation - COP-18, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, wrapped up in Doha, Qatar in the middle of December widely panned as ineffective.   While it extended to 2020 the Kyoto Protocol addressing global greenhouse gas emissions, major nations (Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand) dropped out, and the United States continued to refuse to participate.  Thus, only about fifteen percent of global emissions are now covered by the protocol (the EU and other European nations, as well as Australia, continue to support the protocol).   Developing nations (whose emissions are not restricted by Kyoto) had hoped to obtain commitments for funding "climate finance" of $100 billion, but that did not occur either.  One can see parallels between the Kyoto Protocol and the Western Climate Initiative and RGGI.  In all three members have dropped out and the commitment to address greenhouse gas emissions waivers. 
 
The fiscal cliff was the focus at the end of 2012; climate change got short shrift.  2013 may establish that that was short-sighted.

No En Banc Appeal in Kivalina; So What's Next for Climate Change LItigation?

December 8, 2012 22:18
by J. Wylie Donald

When we discuss climate change litigation with colleagues or acquaintances unfamiliar with it, they are always a little incredulous.  “The plaintiffs allege what?  How could you prove that?  There's no way they can win.”  Courts, however, cannot rule from their impressions; instead, they must parse arguments and facts and explicate the legal reasoning that supports shutting climate change cases out of the courtroom.  We have addressed in this blog many of those decisions as the climate change cases have wound their way up the appellate ladder.  That statement-of-reasons rule, however, does not apply when a court is being asked to grant rehearing en banc.  Then a judge can just say, “I’m not interested.”  And the case is done.

That happened at the end of November in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. when the Ninth Circuit issued its denial (see attached) of plaintiffs' petition for rehearing:  “The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc.  Appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.”  Unless the plaintiffs file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, and the Court accepts it (which we think unlikely with no circuit court split and the dismissal being a fairly simple extension of the Court's decision in American Electric Power), Kivalina is done.  That means that there is no federal common law of nuisance relevant to greenhouse gas emissions whether a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief or damages.  The federal Clean Air Act displaces the claim in both instances. 

Two slim reeds remain for plaintiffs in the first wave of climate change litigation.  First, they need to prevail on an appeal before the Fifth Circuit in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., which will require overcoming over half a dozen independent bases for dismissal found by the trial court.  Or second, they must succeed on a state-law-based theory of nuisance.  As we have noted recently, the Clean Air Act is likely to be found to preempt such claims. 

In light of the string of defeats in American Electric Power, Comer and Kivalina for plaintiffs, we went looking to see where the climate change plaintiffs' lawyers were going next.  The websites of the lead Comer and Kivalina lawyers, Gerald Maples and Matt Pawa, were not helpful.  However, journalist Andrew Longstreth didn’t rest on the websites; he reached out directly to Messrs. Pawa and Maples. Here is the future he found: 

"Pawa said that he and his co-counsel in the Kivalina case are discussing their options, which include asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal or filing a new case in state court that asserts state common law claims. Pawa likened the current state of climate change litigation to the early stages of suits against cigarette makers and companies with asbestos liability. Before plaintiffs' lawyers in those cases were able to win judgments and settlements, they were stymied by defense arguments. "We haven't exhausted our theories or our efforts," he said.

As stated above, the Supreme Court and state law nuisance paths do not seem likely to succeed.  Mr. Maples suggested a different path:

"Future success in climate change litigation, he said, may depend on whether state attorneys general get involved, as they did in the tobacco litigation of the 1990s. With home insurance premiums rising as a result of climate change, Maples said, the litigation could become attractive to state AGs, who like consumer protection cases.  'If you can't afford insurance, that's almost like not affording food,'"

So, is climate change litigation going to take a new turn and become an issue about consumer protection and insurance rates?  After reviewiing the Fourth Amended Complaint in Comer, we suggested in 2011 that this theory was something that bore watching.  Here is the theory in action as alleged in Comer:  “[Defendants' greenhouse gas emissions] put Plaintiffs' property at greater risk of flood and storm damage, and dramatically increase Plaintiffs' insurance costs." (Fourth Amended Complaint ¶ 37.)   Thus, with the demise of federal common law claims, consumer protection law claims may be the next wave. 

20121127 Order (denying rehearing en banc), Kivalina v. ExxonMobil.pdf (34.55 kb)

Carbon Emissions | Climate Change Litigation | Insurance

Virginia Supreme Court Stands Firm on Rehearing Climate Change Insurance Case: AES v. Steadfast is (Re-) Affirmed

April 20, 2012 17:12
by J. Wylie Donald

The Virginia Supreme Court surprised us today.  It issued its opinion (attached) on rehearing in AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co., hardly changed from its original decision finding that the allegations in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. did not constitute an occurrence.  The concurrence, however, is substantially altered, and it is there that one can get a taste of the mischief to which this decision may lead.

We have blogged this subject on several occasions.  In a nutshell, AES sought coverage for climate change liability claims asserted by claimant Inupiat Eskimos, who alleged that AES’s (and others’) carbon dioxide emissions were the cause of the excessive erosion of their community on a spit of land north of the Arctic Circle.  AES tendered the claim to Steadfast, who accepted the defense subject to a reservation of rights, and then filed a declaratory judgment action against AES in Virginia.  Following dueling motions for summary judgment, Steadfast prevailed before the trial court.  AES took an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court.  Notwithstanding specific allegations of negligence by AES, the Court concluded:   “[e]ven if AES were negligent and did not intend to cause the damage that occurred, the gravamen of Kivalina’s nuisance claim is that the damages it sustained were the natural and probable consequences of AES’s intentional emissions.”    In sum, “If an insured knew or should have known that certain results would follow from his acts or omissions, there is no 'occurrence' within the meaning of a comprehensive general liability policy.”  Thus, the trial court was affirmed.

AES sought rehearing because three authorities on which the Court relied established that there was no occurrence where the insured knew to a “substantial certainty” or “substantial probability” that injury would occur.  As the Kivalina plaintiffs made no such “substantial certainty” allegation, AES asserted the Court’s holding was in error.

We learned today that the Court disagreed.  Well, actually, we don’t know if the Court disagreed.  There is no mention of “substantial certainty” or “substantial probability” although the Court continues to cite the exact same authorities.  One could just as reasonably conclude that the Court felt AES’s argument simply was not relevant.  Virginia law, according to the Court is as follows:  “For coverage to be precluded under a CGL policy because there was no occurrence, it must be alleged that the result of an insured’s intentional act was more than a possibility; it must be alleged that the insured subjectively intended or anticipated the result of its intentional act or that objectively, the result was a natural or probable consequence of the intentional act.“  The Kivalina plaintiffs did not allege that AES intended the erosion of the spit, so the allegations had to be read to demonstrate that the erosion in Alaska was a natural or probable consequence of the emissions of carbon dioxide from AES’s plants’ emissions somewhere in the lower 48.  From where we sit, there seems a great distance from the alleged damage in Alaska being a “substantial certainty” or being a “probable consequence.” 

We note a trial court's recent ruling (attached) in another climate change liability case, Comer v. Murphy Oil:, where the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the climate change claims: 

The assertion that the defendants’ emissions combined over a period of decades or centuries with other natural and man-made gases to cause or strengthen a hurricane and damage personal property is precisely the type of remote, improbable, and extraordinary occurrence that is excluded from liability.

So one court rules that allegations of climate change effects are extraordinary, improbable and remote, while another rules they are to be taken as stated.  Regardless, the Court's decision should resolve AES’s quest for coverage from Steadfast.  Other Kivalina defendants will take note and ensure that Virginia is struck from possible litigation venues for their coverage claims.

Will this decision have major implications?  Yes, but probably not in the climate change space.  It is one decision, on one issue, on one set of facts.  We will be very surprised if future plaintiffs do not take note of the decision and ensure that their pleadings more adequately state negligence claims so as to bring insurance money to the table (assuming at some point they can get past motions to dismiss). 

Other jurisdictions have their own jurisprudence on “occurrence” and they are not likely to mirror Virginia’s.  We feel that we can say that with some authority based on the statements made by Justice Mims in his concurrence.  Justice Mims felt that Virginia law left the Court with no option but to find there was no occurrence:  “under the reasoning of our precedents, allegations of negligence and allegations of accident must be mutually exclusive.  … Because “accident” is synonymous with “occurrence,” which is what these CGL policies cover, I concur with the majority that our precedents require us to conclude that they do not provide coverage for AES’s allegedly negligent acts.”  But that leads to a real problem:  “I also must acknowledge the broader effect that this conclusion, and the underlying case law that compels it, may have on other CGL policies in which the insured risk is defined as an “occurrence.  Our precedents may have painted us into a jurisprudential corner.”   Can it be that commercial general liability policies in Virginia do not cover negligence?  Stand by.  This is sure to be the subject of future litigation.

20120420 AES v. Steadfast (Va. Apr. 20, 2012).pdf (42.88 kb)

20120320 Comer v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., Order of Dismissal (S.D Miss).pdf (172.02 kb)

Carbon Emissions | Climate Change Litigation | Insurance

A Primer on How Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Coming out of a Tailpipe Led to Regulation of Greenhouse Gases Coming out of a Stack

March 30, 2012 00:38
by J. Wylie Donald

Tuesday EPA issued its proposed rule (see related post) concerning new source performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions for electric power plants.  This all started when EPA refused to address greenhouse gas emissions coming out of cars.  Cars to power plants.  Some may be wondering how the camel got into this tent.

The story begins of course with Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), where the Supreme Court held that greenhouse gases emitted in automobile exhaust were "air pollutants" within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.  This meant that EPA had to assess whether they caused or contributed to "air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health."  42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1).

That assessment was completed in December 2009 and EPA concluded in the "Endangerment Finding" that "that six greenhouse gases taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations." 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).  The Endangerment Finding did not impose any requirements, but it set the stage for regulation.  In September 2009 EPA and the US Department of Transportation issued proposed rules to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for certain motor vehicles.  The final rule was published on May 7, 2010 and went into effect on January 2, 2011.  75 Fed. Reg. 25324 (May 7, 2010).  The camel's nose was in the tent.

And with that, EPA now had the prerequisite to set greenhouse gas emissions limits elsewhere.  At least that is EPA's position.  In a nutshell, stationary sources that emit 250 tons per year of "pollutants" are subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.  One element of the PSD program is that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis is required for "each pollutant subject to regulation" under the Clean Air Act.  42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4).  When the motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulation kicked in on January 2, 2011, greenhouse gases were subject to regulation, and therefore electric utilities emitting greenhouse gases were required to conduct a BACT analysis.  All of the camel was in the tent.

All of these regulations (and others) were challenged.  Oral argument in those cases was heard before the D.C. Circuit at the end of February.  The regulated community awaits; who knows what the camel is thinking.   

Carbon Dioxide | Carbon Emissions | Regulation

Proposed Rule for Power Plant Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Much Ado About Nothing?

March 30, 2012 00:20
by J. Wylie Donald

Wow!  Whether one likes the president or not, one must concede he's not afraid of leading. Just a little over seven months from the election he has drawn a line in the sand and proposed a rule that may fundamentally alter America's energy mix and takes a big step toward addressing carbon dioxide emissions.  Or it does nothing at all.  We are talking of course of Tuesday's announcement of new source performance standards for electricity plants.   In EPA's words:

The EPA is proposing standards of performance that require that all new fossil fuel-fired EGUs meet an electricity-output-based emission rate of 1,000 lb
CO2/MWh of electricity generated on a gross basis. This proposed standard is based on the demonstrated performance of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units, which are currently in wide use throughout the country, and are likely to be the predominant fossil fuel-fired technology for new generation in the future.  EPA, Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units (proposed rule) at 13 (Mar. 27, 2012) .

So natural gas is in.  And what about the other fossil fuels?  New plants using coal or oil and even IGCC (integrated gas combined cycle) can be built but EPA expects that they will need to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) to meet the standards.  Id.

What brought about this groundbreaking new rule?  We set forth the legal foundation in a companion post.  Suffice to say here that EPA has moved a long way from the days before Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), when greenhouse gases were not Clean Air Act "pollutants."  But the non-regulatory drivers were perhaps even more significant.  All are aware of "fracking".  The use of horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing in shales a mile beneath the surface has unleashed a torrent of natural gas.  As Forbes reports this month natural gas prices are half of what they were just a few years ago.  And the glut is not seen to be abating.  EPA has seized on this surfeit:  "technological developments and discoveries of abundant natural gas reserves have caused natural gas prices to decline precipitously in recent years and have secured those relatively low prices for the near-future."  Proposed Rule at 15.  As a result, "energy industry modeling forecasts uniformly predict that few, if any, new coal-fired power plants will be built in the foreseeable future."  Id. 

In other words, the proposed regulation will have hardly any effect (even none) on coal-fired generation because no one was going to build those plants anyway.  "Our IPM modeling, using Energy Information Administration (EIA) reference case assumptions, projects that there will be no construction of new coal-fired generation without CCS by 2030. Under these assumptions, the proposed rule will not impose costs by 2030."  Id. at 17.

We have read the commentary that this is the death of coal.  The cost of capturing and storing carbon dioxide, which will be the only way for a new coal plant to meet the new standard, is prohibitive. Accordingly, no coal plants will be built. According to EPA, however, coal-fired production was dead anyway because of the glut of natural gas. 

Crystal balls are notoriously unreliable.  Some may remember that nuclear power was to make electricity too cheap to meter. But that didn't happen.  America built the largest man-made construction the world has ever seen (the interstate highway system) on the assumption that gasoline would always be abundant.  That was in error.  An oil embargo introduced Americans to long lines at the fuel pump and locking gas caps. Most forget that natural gas production peaked in the early 1970s, not to be exceeded again until over twenty years had passed.  The point is:  smart people took their best science and made plans.  But reality somehow did not get the message. 

For what it is worth, here is our crystal ball on the demise of coal.  First, CCS technology is pertinent not only to coal. Combustion of natural gas emits carbon dioxide as well. The regulatory imperative will push natural gas plants to address their CO2, and coal will be able to take advantage of improvements in CCS technology. Second, the United States has been called the Saudi Arabia of coal. To expect that industry to dry up and blow away is naïve. Shale gas went from a vanishingly small fraction of the US energy mix to over 20% in five years or less. Innovation made this possible.  Just as ten years ago we could not imagine today's natural gas industry, we may not be able to recognize our coal resource in another ten years. Third, we thought it was fundamental that energy security depends on a mix of energy sources. It would be foolhardy to rely completely on natural gas.  It will only take one cold winter and a natural gas pipeline calamity to make coal seem like a sensible alternative. 

Whether the proposed rule will actually have an impact depends on numerous factors.  All can agree, however, that climate change has been thrust back on the national agenda. 

Carbon Dioxide | Carbon Emissions | Greenhouse Gases | Regulation


McCARTER & ENGLISH CLIMATE CHANGE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PRACTICE GROUP

The business case for the development of renewable energy projects, from biodiesel and ethanol to wind, solar, and distributed generation, is more compelling than ever as tax and regulatory incentives combine to attract investments. Emerging issues in environmental law and increasingly recognized principles of corporate social responsibility are encouraging public companies to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions, install clean energy alternatives, and invest overseas in projects under the Kyoto Protocol to respond to climate change concerns.

Click here for more information and a list of our group members.
© McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved. disclaimer
navbottom image