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

U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, under pressure from the federal courts and environmentalists, Wednesday declared the polar bear threatened because of loss of its sea ice habitat. But he also acted to make sure the move wouldn't trigger broader efforts to aimed at tackling global warming.

Environmental groups that had waged a multi-year battle to cover the animal under the Endangered Species Act offered limited praise for the determination. However, they also issued none-too-veiled threats to continue litigating to beef up the protections. Activists had clearly hoped a listing could be employed in the broader fight against climate change (see Climate Law Update story here). 

"We're going to challenge any attempt to improperly reduce protections for the polar bear," Kassie Siegel,  a California attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Climate Law Update. The group was one of the organizations that had won a court ruling last month demanding the government make a final decision on listing the bear under the endangered species law by May 15 (see Climate Law Update story here). A hearing in the case was scheduled for Thursday in federal court in Oakland, California.

Late in the day, the environmental plaintiffs fired their first legal shot (see court filing here). They accused the government of dragging its feet so much that the listing would not actually meet the May 15 deadline. They also took issue with other parts of the government's action, including its failure to include protections for the bears' "critical habitat."   

Kempthorne made his announcement at a news conference in in Washington, D.C. (see press release here; text of Kempthorne statement here; access formal documents here). He cited the melting of the bear's icy habitat for his determination that the animal deserved protection under what he called "perhaps the least flexible law Congress has ever enacted." But Kempthorne added he was taking several administrative steps to "make certain the ESA isn't abused" to set policies to control global warming, such as controlling emissions from cars or power plants. That echoes a position taken by President Bush recently (see Climate Law Update story here).

Said Kempthorne:

"This decision may not be a popular decision; but I believe it is the right decision. I also believe it is right to put into place what tools I had available to me so we do not have the unintended consequences. We have seen that some have suggested that this will now be the opportunity to regulate greenhouse gases. It's not. This is not the tool." 

A listing of threatened is second only to a classification of endangered under the law. The bear becomes the first mammal to be granted protection under the statute for reasons related to climate change.

Kempthorne's decision drew criticism both from environmentalists and their allies in Congress but also from conservative critics of climate change science.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A new U.S. Department of Energy report finds that wind power could supply up to one-fifth of the nation's electricity by 2030 but not without overcoming challenges such as improving the nation's transmission system.

The news media found lots to note in the report. The Washington Post wrote of the report's findings that wind could displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption in the United States (see story here). The San Francisco Chronicle, meanwhile, cited California's pioneering place in wind power history and cited major new wind farms under development in the state (see story here).

Separately, in a speech to a gathering of scientists, business executives and political leaders co-sponsored by a Republican group, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger touted California's emphasis on alternative energy as a way of fighting global warming. In his address, the governor noted that California patents account for 37 percent of all U.S. patents in wind technology (see press statement here).

The report, "20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030," found that significant hurdles remained to reaching the goal, including such potentially controversial efforts as expanding the transmission grid, as well  as improving turbine technology and expanding markets for the power (see press statement here; full report here). In fact, it noted that a new "transmission superhighway system" could be needed to serve the wind farms and it cited one model showing it would be cost-effective to build more than 12,000 miles of additional transmission, at a cost of about $20 billion.

Transmission debates have already begun heating up in some parts of the country and have been identified by experts as a major issue in developing renewable resources (see Climate Law Update stories here and here).      

In order to reach the 20 percent figure, the energy department report estimates that wind power capacity would have to reach more than 300,000 megawatts, compared to today's capacity of less than 12,000 megawatts.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Businesses in the United Kingdom will not back the case for high levels of environmental taxation, such as those placed on emissions auctions, if the money goes towards meeting other public spending commitments, argues Independent business columnist Jeremy Warner.
• British great tits have proved themselves to be far more adaptable to climate change than their counterparts in the Netherlands. Or so reports London's ever-vigilant The Times. 
• Think there's nothing funny about climate change? There are those who disagree, reports the Guardian.
• Environmental groups are urging Congress to keep in place a ban on purchases of fuel from Canadian tar sands deposits, writes the Globe and Mail (see environmental organizations' press statement here).
• Another day, another verbal beating administered by Congress upon the Environmental Protection Agency for its alleged failure to make decisions based on science rather than politics, as recounted by McClatchy Newspapers. 
• Giant Danish wind power company Vestas says Europe should focus on land-based rather than offshore facilities, reports the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital. 
• President Bush and Congress remain at odds over the latest version of a farm bill, according to the Des Moines Register.
  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coal may be a fossil but apparently it isn't dead.

The U.S. Department of Energy looks to be backing carbon sequestration projects and clean coal in a big way, despite some setbacks for the fuel in recent months (see Climate Law Update stories here and here). The Bush administration acted just as some environmentalists have raised new concerns about the technology.

The department announced this week it was supporting sequestration research efforts, which also could be used for capturing carbon from non-coal sources, in California and the Midwest to the tune of more than $126 million (see press statement here). An executive of the company where the California project will be located said the technology would be useful for many fuels. 

Then on Wednesday the department outlined the separate restructuring of its "FutureGen" program, which could help underwrite "clean coal" projects using carbon sequestration technology to the tune of  many more hundreds of millions of dollars (see press release here).

While neither of the two newest sequestration projects appeared to rely on coal as a primary fuel source, coal clearly wasn't far from the minds of Bush administration energy  officials. The energy department's announcement earlier this week said that "advancing carbon sequestration is a key component of the Bush administration's comprehensive efforts to commercially advance clean coal technology" to meet the nation's energy needs. 

In a statement, California Energy Commission Vice Chair James Boyd waxed enthusiastic about the $65.6 million headed toward the state (see press release here):

"By demonstrating how greenhouse gas emissions can be safely contained through carbon sequestration, we make strides to curb the effects of global warming. Using the newest carbon capture and storage technology, California can show how environmental and industrial concerns are working together for the same cause."

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• Who finds it easy -- or good business -- being green? The San Francisco Chronicle, citing a report from a New Hampshire nonprofit group, gives an accounting of climate-friendly companies.
• It's mercury, not climate issues, driving the opposition, but the Sierra Club is threatening to sue to block a number of coal-fired power plants, according to Reuters.
• The pending lapse of renewable energy tax credits causes the Christian Science Monitor to look at the implications, focusing on Arizona. 
• Nuclear power is on the minds of all three major presidential candidates, reports Reuters in a story carried on Planet Ark. 
• Democrats in the U.S. Senate unveil a new energy bill that taxes "Big Oil," according to a report on Reuters (see Democratic analysis of bill here). 
• The worldwide carbon market, now valued at $64 billion, "could become a victim of its own success and paralyze further progress," writes the Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital, citing a new World Bank report (see World Bank press release here; text of report here).
• Iowa Gov. Chet Culver signs a bill promoting renewable energy in that state, reports The Messenger of Fort Dodge, Iowa (see Culver press release here).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A new lawsuit filed by environmentalists challenges Arctic oil and gas exploration efforts the groups contend threaten marine mammals such as whales.

Plaintiffs include organizations that have already sought to force new federal protections for polar bears and other animals because of alleged threats from climate change, a move that could also have implications for oil development in the region.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Alaska on Monday the lawsuit asks a judge to rule that federal authorizations allowing the explorations in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas by Shell  and BP were issued before proper environmental reviews were conducted and that the actions could seriously harm marine mammals. The plaintiffs also asked for a preliminary injunction blocking the activities, at least some of which were planned for this summer (see lawsuit text here; motion for preliminary injunction here).

Seismic surveys planned by the companies "will result in excessive noise pollution in Arctic waters that have not been subjected to such levels of concurrent seismic noise pollution for at least 15 years, if ever," claimed the documents filed by the groups. The plaintiffs, which also include a native village, focused primarily on concerns for the health of such animals as whales and seals. Polar bears are only briefly mentioned in the lawsuit, as inhabitants of both of the seas year-round. 

Officials of the federal Minerals Management Service, which issued the seismic survey permits, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, which was also named as a defendant, told Climate Law Update they would have no immediate comment on the case.  Both oil companies, neither of which was named in the lawsuit, also declined comment specifically on the case but they each defended the environmental soundness of their exploration practices.   

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gov. Ted Strickland of coal-heavy Ohio has signed a bill pushing his state's electric distribution utilities to make sure that 25 percent of the power they sell comes from "alternative" resources by 2025.

Under Senate Bill 221, that would include juice coming from such renewable sources as wind and solar, to other forms of generation, including "clean" coal, fuel cells and advanced nuclear, according to a statement by Strickland (see statement here; bill text here) and a report in the Toledo Blade (see story here).

To meet the mandate that at least 25 percent of the power come from "alternative energy resources," Ohio's legislation requires that "at least half shall be generated from renewable energy resources, including one-half per cent from solar energy resources," in accordance with a number of annual benchmarks. 

The Blade reported that the measure allows utilities to avoid full compliance with the standards if they can demonstrate that their attempts to comply would raise consumers' bills by 3 percent or more, a provision that disappointed some environmental groups.

In his statement, Strickland (pictured) lauded the measure:

"This bill, Senate Bill 221, will ensure predictability of affordable energy prices and maintain state controls necessary to protect Ohio jobs and businesses.

We will safeguard Ohio families by empowering consumers and modernizing Ohio’s energy infrastructure.

And we will attract the jobs of the future through an advanced energy portfolio standard—and today’s action by Ohio means that a majority of states now agree that these technologies represent the future of energy in the United States." 
 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• 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

This saving the planet stuff just isn't complicated enough, it seems.

Underscoring the importance of the finer points involved in establishing a market-based approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions, a new report (accessible here) sponsored by a fascinating collection of interests shows how huge sums are at stake depending on how such a program is structured.

The most intriguing part of the document examines one of the most controversial parts of a cap-and-trade scenario: the distribution of emissions credits or "allowances" that will determine how many tons of heat-trapping gases that, say, a power plant can emit over a year. It looks at the differences in formulas contemplated by two bills now before Congress, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and the Bingaman-Specter Low Carbon Economy Act. The document also adds another twist, such as examining what would happen if credits were allocated based on each company's electricity output, versus its share of emissions.

The report generally seems to side with Lieberman-Warner. That bill would require selling more of the credits initially and it would also allocate some credits for sale to benefit the public.

The document also finds that some utilities, such as those with relatively cleaner technologies, would fare vastly better under a system in which credits were distributed on the basis of power output. However, both bills so far propose to allocate the allowances to electric providers based on their historic carbon dioxide emissions. 

The bills are named for their sponsors, Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., John Warner, R-Va., Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico, and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A new federal economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act shows that the measure wouldn't impede strong growth in the United States; whereas a new federal study of the bill forecasts a gloomy future of  higher energy prices and problems for industry.

It's the same document. Just depends on who's looking at it.

Produced by the Department of Energy's statistical arm, the Energy Information Administration, the new report seems to have done little to foster agreement between the warring sides in the battle over the greenhouse gas reduction bill. The Senate is poised to take up the bill, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., in June.

Like a previous government analysis of the bill, which would cap emissions and establish a trading program, the new report shows some economic impacts but it also predicts by mid-century the legislation would produce better than 50 percent cuts in the production of heat-trapping gases (see text of report here). 

According to the new study, the drag on the gross domestic product between 2009 to 2030 would be between 0.2 percent and 0.6 percent. The bill's impacts would fall more heavily on industry than on other parts of the economy, the report predicted. While comparing the two analyses is difficult because of differences between them, the overall economic effects forecast by the new document appear to be generally smaller than those found by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its  analysis put forward earlier this year (see Climate Law Update story here).  

Perhaps not surprisingly, supporters and opponents of congressional action to address climate change saw the energy department report dramatically differently. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a leading Republican global warming skeptic (pictured), said the analysis showed the bill "is wrong for America." Environmental groups and congressional supporters of the legislation saw it as confirming the bill as economically benign.

    

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The U.S. Department of Interior had only a muted reaction to Monday's federal court ruling demanding a quick decision on whether to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act because of global warming. But that didn't keep the department's critics from weighing in.

A spokesman for the department headed by Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (pictured), in an e-mail forwarded Tuesday to Climate Law Update, gave little clue as to the government's next step in aftermath of U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling:

"We have received the court's decision and we are reviewing it. We will evaluate the legal options and will decide the appropriate course of action." 

Wilken Monday ruled in favor of a number of environmental groups and ordered the department to decide by May 15 whether to shield the animals under the endangered species law. The judge, who sits in Oakland, Calif., also rejected calls by the government, which has previously proposed designating the bears as "threatened," to delay the effect of its decision (see Climate Law Update story below). 

The ruling gave those skeptical of the agency's motives plenty of ammunition, and also a chance to talk about the larger implications of a listing under the powerful federal statute. They also seemed to have little doubt that the government will extend law's protections to the bear.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

A federal judge in California late Monday gave the federal government barely two weeks to make a final decision on protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, a move that could have significant implications for regulatory efforts to combat climate change.

Environmentalists pushing for protections for the iconic animals have accused the Bush administration of dragging its feet on the matter in order to avoid interfering with plans to explore for oil in parts of the bears' far northern home. Federal officials had concluded that oil and gas development would not pose a threat to the bears throughout their range. 

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken (access biography here), in a 10-page decision, told the Interior Department to issue a final ruling on the matter by no later than May 15 (see text of order here). The judge also required that whatever decision the government makes would take effect immediately at the time it is issued. Additionally, she wrote that she did not need to have the parties come to court to argue the matter because "timeliness is essential, the issues are not complex and the parties are generally in agreement" on the issue.

The ruling was a win for the environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been pushing since 2005 to list the polar bear as an endangered species because of the effects of global warming on the bears' icy habitat. The interior department's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of a prior court agreement, had proposed to list the bear as a threatened species last year (see text of proposal here) but then took no final action (see Climate Law Update stories here and here).

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)

On Earth Day, attention naturally turns to all things green – as in money.

Pocketbook issues are at the center of a number of new reports that assess the impact of efforts to combat climate change and promote the development of renewable sources of energy. One report shows government subsidies taking a big jump in recent years with renewables such as solar and wind getting a proportionately large share of the money.

The Environmental Defense Fund has come out with a document that studies the studies out there on the economic cost of a cap-and-trade system to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. Perhaps coming as no shock, the organization concludes that “a clear consensus” among the models demonstrates such a market system “is consistent with long-term economic growth.” The overall cost of capping the gases would amount to less than 1 percent of household budgets over the coming two decades, according to the EDF, which supports market approaches to the problem (see press statement here; text of study here).

Release of the analysis comes as the U.S. Senate is readying to take up the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which would establish a cap-and-trade system in the country. It also comes against a background of other reports issued by the government and business organizations showing potentially significant  economic impacts from such a system (see Climate Law Update story here).

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

President Bush Wednesday set a goal of halting the increase in the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, a significantly less ambitious objective than that established by some of the states, including California.

But in a speech in the White House Rose Garden, Bush also opened the door to a binding international agreement on cutting emissions.

In his speech, the president warned against raising taxes or imposing mandates or demands for “sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy.” He also argued in favor of promoting “emission-free nuclear power” and encouraging investments needed to produce electricity from coal without releasing carbon (see full text of statement here; see White House fact sheet here).

Bush called the new goal to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2025 “a major step forward in America’s efforts to address climate change.” Yet he outlined few specific steps, beyond some already taken such as requiring better automobile fuel efficiency, to achieve the target. Among his goals, he said, was to create a new incentive to make the development, commercialization and use of new lower-emission technologies more competitive.

By contrast, California’s anti-global warming law, AB 32, requires the state to roll back its emissions of heat-trapping gases to 1990 levels by 2020, an estimated 25 percent reduction. Even further cuts would be required later under an order issued by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (see text here). Additionally, all three major presidential candidates have endorsed emissions limits and trading programs.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)

Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States dropped by a somewhat lower fraction than earlier reported, according to final estimates released this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

However, the annual Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks still showed a 1.1 percent drop between 2005 and 2006, compared to a draft report’s estimate earlier this year of a 1.5 percent decline (latest report can be accessed here; EPA press statement here). It also indicated that previous years’ emissions were a bit lower than had been previously estimated.

Both versions of the report also concluded that a variety of factors, including increased use of natural gas and renewable power sources, warmer winter weather and rising fuel prices contributed to the decline (see previous Climate Law Update story here).

The agency recalculated some of the base figures used in the report, which produced estimates lower than those previously reported. Those changes also helped narrow some of the gaps between the years. For instance, the earlier draft report showed total emissions in 2005 were equivalent to 7.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, dropping to just more than 7.2 billion in 2006, a difference of about 112 million tons. In the revised report, those figures were about 7.1 billion and 7 billion, respectively, a difference of approximately 75 million tons.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

California utility regulators have voted to commit more than a half-billion dollars – paid for by the ratepayers of the state’s privately owned utilities -- to a research and development effort devoted to finding new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and getting them to market.

The five members of the California Public Utilities Commission, meeting at the commission's San Francisco headquarters (pictured) unanimously approved the proposal creating the California Institute for Climate Solutions. However, not all of them were fully pleased with the result. Commissioner John Bohn said the decision pushed the boundaries of the commission’s jurisdiction almost to the breaking point and he questioned charging ratepayers for investigating new technologies that might never be successful.

Commission President Michael Peevey, who carried the proposal, said California had long been a leader in environmental issues and that it was again time “to take bold and immediate action.”

The plan (see CPUC press statement here; full text of decision here) calls for $60 million a year for 10 years in ratepayer funds to go toward the institute. Most of that money, at least 85 percent, would be used to fund grants for applied research intended to support greenhouse gas reductions, as demanded by California’s landmark law, AB 32.

The institute was charged with targeting research focused on “practical and commercially viable technologies that will reduce" greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the means of adapting to the impacts of climate change that may now be inevitable. It is also intended to speed "the transfer of these technologies from the laboratory to market place," according to the lengthy decision approved by the commission Thursday. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

British Columbia is moving forward with a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, laying the groundwork for the province's involvement in a Western North American regional trading system.

The development occurs as one new report strikes a cautionary note about how to establish a market, warning that free allocation of emissions credits has helped produce large windfall profits in Europe (see full document here). But the Western Climate Initiative, the regional system to which British Columbia and a number of states belong, is contemplating at least a partial sale of credits (see text here). 

British Columbia officials recently announced the introduction of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, also known as the Cap and Trade Act. They said it would put British Columbia out front of other Canadian provinces as it prepares for the onset of the new trading system (see press statement here, see text of legislation here).

“The Cap and Trade Act will make British Columbia the first Canadian province to introduce legislation authorizing hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions,” said Environment Minister Barry Penner (pictured) in a statement. A “hard” cap means that each emitter will face a set target, regardless of the growth of its operations, according to a report in the Canadian newspaper the Globe and Mail (see story here).

One expert quoted by the paper said no one in North America has done what the province is proposing. Officials from the petroleum production industry and elsewhere also expressed some concerns about the measure and how it might mesh with regulations set by other provinces and the nation’s government, as well as the province’s own newly introduced carbon tax.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By any measure, it’s been a tough few weeks in the spotlight for biofuels such as corn-based ethanol and other alternative sources for transportation energy, including hydrogen.

A Time Magazine cover story not-so-subtly titled: “The Clean Energy Scam,” set the tone for the criticism. But it was met by a spirited rejoinder from the biofuels industry, which sees itself as helping to lead the way toward sustainability.  

The scrutiny focused on biofuels didn't stop with the magazine. 

Recently, reports have emerged that American biofuel subsidies have, in the characterization of the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital, been “boomeranging” across the Atlantic (see story here). Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported a California biofuels manufacturer was “short on cash and suffering from higher corn and plant construction costs” which threaten the company. The paper also noted a number of other plants that have been put on hold across the country, citing narrowing margins between the cost of production and the selling price of ethanol (see story at newspaper's Web site here).

Then, late last week, reports began emerging that corn had hit a record $6 a bushel, prompting the food industry to pin the blame rising prices squarely on government encouragement of ethanol production. The Grocery Manufacturers Association said the "ripple effects" are being "felt throughout the economy" (see statement here).  

On the hydrogen front, the San Jose Mercury News tweaked California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who four years ago proclaimed the creation of a “hydrogen highway” that would allow motorists to fill up fuel cell cars. So far, however, the newspaper reported (see story here), “not a single hydrogen fueling station has been built under the program.” The article cited a number of possible reasons, from economics to politics, for the failure. The paper also reported that Mary Nichols, the chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, believes up to 100 stations will be built by 2015, five years later than expected.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

A legal action led by Massachusetts and supported by 17 other states and nearly a dozen environmental organizations was launched Wednesday to force the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a critical document that would trigger nationwide regulation of greenhouse gases.

The new move, in the form of a petition for a writ of mandamus, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It sought to require the EPA to put forward its formal determination of whether emissions of the climate-changing gases endanger the public’s health or welfare. Such an “endangerment” finding, the filing  charged, has already been made but it is being withheld (see text).

“It is a necessary and critical step, which is why the administration is making its stand there,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate attorney for the Sierra Club, one of the groups filing the action, during a nationwide conference call with reporters. “They know once the endangerment finding is made they’re obligated to begin controlling greenhouse gases.”

He acknowledged that no final regulation was likely to be in place until after a new administration comes into office. However, he and others said that it was important to move forward now to get the process started.

“Time is not on our side,” said James Milkey, chief of the environmental protection division under Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (pictured).

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)

An attorney for one environmental group that has actively sought to bring the tools of endangered species protections into the fight against global warming says the tactic could have multiple effects.

Brendan Cummings, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity, suggested in an interview with Climate Law Update that the organization’s recent success in getting the National Marine Fisheries Service to examine climate-related endangered species protection for several species of seals could produce impacts both locally and much broader in scope. The agency last week announced it would review the ribbon seal, a mammal that inhabits Alaska’s Bering Sea, for listing under the Endangered Species Act, as well as three other seal species: bearded, spotted and ringed (see press release and formal notice).

The fisheries service said it was acting on a petition presented last year by the environmental organization asking it to list the seal as threatened or endangered (see text of petition). Last week's statement by the agency came a few days after the environmental group threatened to bring a lawsuit to force the government to act.  

At a regional level, the group’s petition to the government agency cited threats to the seals from such sources as oil and gas development, commercial fishing and Russian harvesting of the animals. But it also warned that the ice on which the seals live is rapidly melting due to global warming.

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Stephen L. Johnson, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, might be feeling a bit besieged after the reaction to his decision to go slow on regulating greenhouse gases. But he’s still got friends in the industrial community and elsewhere.

“I think he made a very sensible move,” Hank Cox, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, told Climate Law Up date Friday. The association, headed by former Michigan Gov. John Engler (pictured), has itself been urging a cautious approach to addressing climate change and it recently released a study warning of major economic and employment losses if Congress enacts legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill (see recent Climate Law Update story), which would establish a national emissions cap-and-trade system.

Johnson provoked outrage among Democrats and environmental organizations when he informed lawmakers he was going to take more time to study the regulation of greenhouse gases before acting. Some critics accused the Bush administration of acting according to an “industry script” on the issue.

Johnson’s action came nearly a year after a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which said the agency had the authority to regulate the emissions believed to contribute to global warming as pollutants, and it ordered its officials to look into such questions as whether the gases pose a threat to people. Critics threatened a new round of legal action to force the EPA to move on the issue (see Thursday’s Climate Law Update story).

Cox said he believed his organization made its views known to the EPA before Johnson announced his decision Thursday.

“I’m sure we did,” Cox said.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Governors in Vermont and Utah have become the latest to sign legislation intended to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, boost renewable energy generation, or both.

Of the two, Vermont’s was the more comprehensive (see text of bill). Senate Bill 209, signed by Gov. Jim Douglas, establishes an efficiency program he said was intended to help homeowners and businesses reduce fuel consumption and save money (see press release). At least part of the money would come from the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s cap-and-trade program.The first auction under that fast-developing program is scheduled for this fall (see press release).

One key provision in the bill appears to encourage cooperative efforts among the population to develop local renewable energy projects. 

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman put his name to a measure that establishes a renewable portfolio standard for the state. Senate Bill 202 (see text) sets a goal for Utah utilities, both municipal and privately owned, that would mean 20 percent of their “adjusted” electric sales would come from renewable sources by 2025. That’s somewhat more modest than standards set in other states, including California, which has established a 20 percent renewable goal by 2010 and is considering efforts to increase that proportion.

 

      

Continue Reading...