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

• 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

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." 
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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).

• 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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)

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).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Despite all the talk about greenhouse gas reductions and the means to achieve them, including establishing new trading schemes for carbon, a pair of new studies suggests the nation has a ways to go.

One of the documents, in which a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official has parsed the latest government data, shows that carbon dioxide emissions from power plants appear to be back on the rise (see press release and report and appendices). That follows on the heels of government study released only this month showing overall carbon emissions, including those from power generation, had fallen just a year earlier (see study and Climate Law Update article).

In addition, a Department of Energy study of Western utilities suggested that some of them are including fairly optimistic estimates about the impact of trading mechanisms on carbon prices. The study (which can be seen here) appeared to gently urge them to boost those figures. At the same time, it found that the utilities are aggressively planning to increase efficiency and add new renewable generation to their portfolios.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Environmentalists are claiming victory in their efforts to at least temporarily shelve federal financial support for rural coal-fired power plants the critics believe contribute to climate change. An official of the Rural Utilities Service,  an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a key financial player in such facilities, recently revealed that service would be "precluded from financing base load generation plants" both this year and likely next.

The government's decision has already helped lead to the demise of at least one coal-fired plant and has raised financing questions about several others.

An early word came in a Feb. 19 letter from James M. Andrew, administrator of utilities programs for the RUS, to the head of a Montana electric cooperative that had hoped to win financing from the agency for its Highwood Generating Station, a coal-fired plant. In the letter, Andrew pulled the plug on the federal service's involvement in the 250-megawatt project. The letter also mentioned the "uncertainty" posed by pending litigation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)