Climate Law Update: Climate Change & Sustainable Energy News : Thelen Reid Law Firm : Renewable Energy, Construction, Project Finance Lawyers & Attorneys

• The Asian Development Bank's head announces a new fund to combat damage caused by climate change, writes The Economic Times of India. 
• Scientists suggest species living in the tropics may be in more serious danger than those living near the Arctic, reports the CBC.
• The world can reach a significant new climate change agreement by the end of next year, if current talks keep up their momentum, the head of the United Nations climate panel says, according to Reuters.
• A connection between rising shark attacks and global warming? Perhaps, the Guardian newspaper writes.
• A new book that offers "a profound academic, spiritual, theological, exegetical, politically grounded and energizing rendering of the global climate and sustainability crisis" is positively reviewed by The Christian Century. 
• Sempra Energy Chairman Donald E. Felsinger says there is enough scientific evidence in place that "we need to take action" to mitigate the effects of climate change, according to an interview with the New York Times appearing over the weekend
• The Bush administration literally chose to "add more fuel to the global warming fire" by moving ahead to open the Chukchi Sea to drilling, argues the Audubon Magazine.
• Ethanol mandates "are just an appetizer for a much larger big business feast should a liberal Congress be paired with a liberal White House," argues a posting on the Heritage Foundation's blog, The Foundry.   
  
  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• The X Prize Foundation, which has previously handed out millions of dollars to stimulate developments in such fields as space travel, has announced it will distribute $100 million in awards for innovations in alternatives to fossil fuels, Business Week reports.
• The world's poorest and most vulnerable children are being hit hardest by climate change, according to a report prepared by UNICEF UK, writes the Telegraph.
• Sweden, which introduced a carbon tax in 1991, has made great strides in cutting emissions, putting it at the top of a European environmental group's list, according to the Guardian.
• Hurricane expert and global warming skeptic William Gray is on the outs with the Colorado university at which he is a professor emeritus, reports the Houston Chronicle.
• Connecticut's House of Representatives has overwhelmingly approved a tough new mandate that requires the state to drastically cut the greenhouse gas emissions associated with global warming, according to the Hartford Courant. 
• Duke Energy Corp. chief executive Jim Rogers wants a national use tax on every kilowatt of electricity sold across the nation, writes the Charlotte Observer.
• Global warming may open enormous economic opportunities in the Arctic, writes author Barry Zellen, director of the Arctic security research project at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School's Center for Contemporary Conflict, in a lengthy commentary in the Globe and Mail.
       

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A California lawyer who has closely followed California's energy regulation, and once was part of it, has concluded that state lawmakers handed Attorney General Jerry Brown a victory last year when they passed a new law in reaction to his controversial greenhouse gas litigation.

The statute  was passed as SB 97 (see full text here). The legislation codifies Brown's argument that that increased emissions of the gases and their effects constitute an environmental impact that must be considered by agencies issuing permits that are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. That's according to Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner attorney Peter V. Allen (pictured) in an article originally published in  Ecology Law Currents, vol. 35 (2008). The publication is produced at the University of California-Berkeley's law school Boalt Hall (see full article here).

The law was approved last year after Brown sparked controversy in the Legislature by weighing in on county land use and transportation plans and other proposals that warranted scrutiny under the state environmental law. Brown ultimately sued San Bernardino County and reached a settlement requiring the county to take account of greenhouse gases and come up with a plan to reduce them (see text of lawsuit here; text of settlement here; press statement here).

Republicans in the Legislature had held up the state budget and attempted to pass a law limiting Brown's power to bring such lawsuits in the future, a clash that ultimately produced SB 97. Critics viewed Brown's work as a premature effort to enforce the state's law limiting greenhouse emissions, AB 32. Brown, who has maintained the state needs to move forward quickly with efforts to reduce heat-trapping gases, argued that San Bernardino had not adequately analyzed the effects of development on global warming.  

In addition to constituting "a win for the attorney general's position," the bill also will make many CEQA reviews more complex and will require more costly mitigation measures for many projects, Allen wrote. But he noted it should also provide some potential opportunities, especially for renewable energy providers. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This Commentary was written by Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner attorneys Peter V. Allen and Richard M. Shapiro:

With the recent increase in concern about global warming and energy security, supporters of nuclear power are arguing that it is now time to restart the construction of nuclear power plants in the US. The national debate around nuclear power has focused on cost, safety, and waste disposal issues, but California presents additional constraints on the siting of nuclear power plants. These constraints, along with California’s significant renewable energy resources, combine to make renewable generation a better choice in California.

Even beyond California’s statutory moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants, other factors, including the politics and economics of water, the prevalence and location of earthquake faults, and California’s hybrid electricity market structure, render nuclear power a far less attractive option in California than in other parts of the US. At the same time, California has abundant renewable resources, including solar, wind, and geothermal. The result: in California, it is more practical to get additional electricity from new renewable plants, not new nuclear plants.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks