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

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

California's approaches to cleaning up automobile greenhouse gas emissions are better than those recently proposed by the federal government -- according to California.

The California Air Resources Board this week released a new study that it said "conclusively demonstrates" that the state's mandate for cutting tailpipe emissions believed to contribute to global warming achieved more than 40 percent greater reductions than new federal mileage standards announced last month (see press statement here; full report here).

The document constituted the latest salvo in the continuing war of words -- and lawyers -- between the state and federal government over how best to address potentially climate-changing pollution from cars and other sources. California is currently in court challenging the Bush administration's refusal to allow the state's vehicle standards to proceed (see Climate Law Update story here). State officials have also reacted negatively to the new federal plan, seeing in it a poison pill that would prevent California and other states from moving forward with stricter controls (see Climate Law Update story here).

Release of the new report came as automobile executives and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger met at the state Capitol on the issue. According to some press reports, the leaders discussed some cooperative approaches to reducing emissions, even as they appeared to give little ground elsewhere (see San Diego Union-Tribune story here).   

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

• What is arguably the world's cutest animal, the koala, faces threats to its existence from climate change, according to Australia's Science Daily.
• California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi warns that global warming could push water levels high enough to inundate the Central Valley town of Stockton, the Stockton Record reports. 
• Evangelicals and other Christian activists are allying themselves with proponents of legislation in Congress to curtail greenhouse emissions, says a McClatchy Newspapers report in the Dallas Morning News.
• A recent study that suggests a possible lull in global warming could reduce the urgency of the battle to combat climate change, speculates Reuters.
• Farmers in the Philippines are being told that irrigation water for rice crops is drying up due to a changing climate, according to an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.  

• 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

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

Maryland's Gov. Martin O'Malley has signed a package of energy bills to among other things beef up renewable portfolio standards in that state, set goals for reducing energy consumption and funnel proceeds from the sale of greenhouse gas credits to clean energy projects.

The governor (pictured) also signed a measure, SB 1013, that ratifies a settlement of a dispute with Constellation Energy Group and ends ratepayer obligations for decommissioning nuclear power plants in the future. The settlement, according to the Baltimore Sun newspaper, also gives the state some assurances a nuclear power plant will be built (see article here). 

In a statement, O'Malley, a Democrat, held out high hopes for the a package of bills on energy and other environmental issues (see text here):

"With today’s bills, we are creating a sustainable energy policy, securing relief for thousands of Maryland ratepayers through a global settlement with Constellation Energy, protecting our environment and helping to restore the Chesapeake Bay for future generations.” 

Among the bills signed by O'Malley was a measure that, according to various reports, about doubles the state's renewable power mandate. The new law, HB 375, requires 20 percent of Maryland's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2022. That's a more modest goal than some other states, including California, which is prodding utilities to meet the 20 percent goal by 2010 and is considering imposing a 33 percent goal by 2020 (see background on California mandate here). 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

A new report published by the California Public Utilities Commission suggests a robust beginning for a state program to provide incentives for residential and commercial solar projects.

The document, issued this week, reported that the California Solar Initiative, launched in January 2007, has received more than 10,000 applications. It has more than 9,800 on file, equaling more than 249 megawatts of new solar and $649 million in incentives (see full text of report here). The initiative, which covers existing residences and both existing and new commercial, industrial and agricultural properties, is one of several in California intended to boost solar installations.

Among the report's highlights:

• Applications for more than 40 megawatts were added in the first quarter of 2008;
• The program has 33.4 megawatts of installed projects, including more than 14 MW in the first quarter of 2008;
• Residential applications make up 89 percent of all the applications received but the total capacity of non-residential projects account for more than 80 percent of the electric capacity.

Officials estimated that based on applications received by the end of 2007, at least 100 MW of capacity should be installed under the initiative in 2008. Project applicants have 12 months to complete their installations.

The nearly $2.2 billion ratepayer-funded program offers financial incentives to customers in the territories of the state’s large private utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric; Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric. The report found that so far the most interest in both residential and non-residential project has been in PG&E’s territory, although that could change under the program’s provisions allowing incentives to decrease once certain levels of capacity are met in each area.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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)

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

Global warming is bad, and developing renewable energy to help solve the problem is good, right? While that might be a popular view, the reality is a bit more complicated, as experts in the field have begun noting with some frequency lately.

Talk of what UCLA School of Law Professor Ann Carlson (pictured) calls “localized environmental values clashes” over renewable projects was in the air at a recent conference at the University of California-Berkeley’s law school, Boalt Hall.

Speakers at the two-day event, “California and the Future of Environmental Law and Policy,” noted that, in particular, legal and policy fights over transmission lines pose a significant challenge for renewable development. Among them was Karen Douglas, who formerly spearheaded California climate change efforts for the  group Environmental Defense (now known as Environmental Defense Fund). She is now a member of the California Energy Commission which, among other duties, licenses large new thermal power plants in the state, as well as the transmission lines connecting them to the grid. Douglas crystallized the issue this way:

“It’s kind of a different challenge to do renewables because you’ve got to generate the power where the renewable resources are and then bring it where the people are. So that means often a lot of power lines. People don’t want that through their neighborhoods. It’s hard to site and hard to build and so on, so one issue is transmission.”

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• 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)

At least U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, presumably, still has friends in the executive branch. Because he’s facing some opposition in the other two arenas of government.

The EPA, which this week landed in court action because of Johnson’s decision to take his time to study whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, could find itself getting new marching orders from Congress.

Two senators, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, have announced they're backing legislation to set a 60-day deadline for the agency to complete a critical step on the road to restricting climate-changing gases (see press release and text of bill). The measure sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-California (pictured), and Olympia Snow, R-Maine, would also require the EPA to reconsider its denial of California’s attempt to regulate tailpipe emissions believed to contribute to global warming (see previous Climate Law Update story).

The EPA had only a bare-bones response to the announcement.

"We will review any legislation that is passed by Congress," wrote Jonathan Shrader, the agency's press secretary, in an e-mail to Climate Law Update.   

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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)

No surprise in this, except perhaps for the quick timing, but last week’s decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to go slow on regulating greenhouse gases looks like it's landing the agency back in court.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown, along with attorneys representing the state of Massachusetts, the Sierra Club and others are expected to announce Wednesday new legal action to force the EPA to move forward. The action coincides with the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In a statement, Brown’s office said Tuesday the legal maneuver would be taken to force the EPA “to obey” the decision.    

EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson (pictured) sparked the ire of Democrats and environmentalists – and the praise of industry groups – by announcing that he wanted to avoid “rushing to judgment” on the issue. He laid out an administrative process to study the matter, citing the fact the EPA’s decision could have widespread ramifications beyond automobiles, which had been the immediate focus of the Supreme Court decision (see previous Climate Law Update stories here and here).

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

U.S. Transportation Department officials Friday formally took steps to begin complying with a federal appellate court ruling last year that, among other things, required the agency to consider global warming when setting fuel economy standards for certain motor vehicles.

The move by the department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration came a day after the California Air Resources Board reduced its previous requirements for the number of zero-emission motor vehicles that manufacturers must sell in the state in coming years. However, the air board’s chairwoman Mary Nichols also moved toward streamlining California’s automobile emissions standards, including those that deal specifically with greenhouse gases, so that they synchronize (see press release).

At the national level, the highway transportation agency published a notice in the Federal Register (see text) that it was moving ahead with plans to prepare an environmental impact statement on its fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. The notice said the agency in preparing the document would “consider issues raised” in the litigation that resulted in a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last year throwing out the Bush administration’s earlier standards governing sport utility vehicles and other light trucks such as pickups. That ruling was based, in part on the fact that that officials gave no value to carbon dioxide emissions reductions (see text of ruling). The court ordered the agency to come up with new standards and to prepare a full environmental impact statement.

Friday’s notice did not say precisely when all the work would be completed, only that it expects to prepare a draft environmental statement for public comment and a final document to support the new standards “later this year.” It said the document would "consider the potential environmental impacts of new fuel economy standards for model year 2011-2015 passenger cars and light trucks" that the highway safety agency would be proposing pursuant to last year's Energy Independence and Security Act. That new law mandates improved vehicle mileage (see President Bush's press release).

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, declaring that he wanted to avoid “rushing to judgment on a single issue,” informed lawmakers Thursday he'll be taking additional time to study the critical issue of whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Outraged critics, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (pictured), said the move makes it virtually certain no action will be taken during the remainder of President Bush's term in office.

Johnson, in a letter to key members of Congress (see text), outlined an administrative procedure that would ramp up this spring and would then be followed by a period in which the public could comment. It was not immediately known how long the process would take to produce a final decision, although skeptics predicted it would push any ultimate determination into the next administration. Environmental groups vowed to return to court to force the agency to act.

The announcement, coming nearly a year after the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark Massachusetts v. EPA ruling held the agency had the authority to regulate the gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, immediately provoked the condemnation of environmentalists and others. The Supreme Court ruling did not require the agency to issue regulations but it told the EPA it had to consider such issues as whether public health was endangered. While the ruling came in the context of regulating emissions from motor vehicles but many now want the EPA to wield broad control over substances believed to contribute to climate change, from whatever source.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (4)

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.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The coal war, it seems, is heating up by the day. And the battlegrounds are not always in places commonly associated with aggressive environmentalism

Take Kansas and Utah, for instance.

The Kansas City star reports that lawmakers are trying to revive a modified version of a bill vetoed last week by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that would have allowed construction of two new coal-fired plants over the greenhouse gas-related opposition of a state regulator.  Among her objections was the lack of support for wind power in the legislation (see text of vetoed bill and Sebelius press release with attached veto message). 

Farther west, a dispute over a proposed new coal plant in Utah is creating a legal vortex drawing industry, environmentalists and other states, including California, into a debate over the extent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate emissions blamed for climate change.

All of this comes against a background of work in Congress on greenhouse legislation that would establish a market system for reducing emissions (cited by Sebelius), and more coal-specific developments, including a recent decision by a federal agency to back away from funding such projects (see recent Climate Law Update story). Lawmakers are also working on other federal legislation that would allow new coal plants to move forward only if they can capture and store the vast majority of their carbon emissions (see press release and text of bill).

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)

Led by Washington state, where the governor just signed a new law charting a path to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, Western states have made several recent moves on the climate change and renewable energy fronts.

Oregon and South Dakota put in place new laws to boost the renewable energy industry. Oregon’s statute is aimed at manufacturers of renewable energy equipment, while the South Dakota legislation gives breaks to wind energy facilities and transmission lines serving them.

The new Washington statute, signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire, firms up goals established in a law passed last year and a 2007 executive order that would reduce Washington’s climate-related emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, the same as California’s AB 32. The Washington statute also sets goals for later years, including a 50 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. (See here for text of 2007 law; the 2007 executive order; Gov. Gregoire's press release upon signing the 2008 legislation, House Bill 2815, into law and the full text of the 2008 statute, as well as a legislative analysis.)

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Top California officials Thursday laid out a vision of a reduced-carbon future that included some very un-California-sounding notions, such as denser cities and cars driven fewer miles.

“I’m not even sure this is politically helpful to you,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown told about 200 local government officials and planning experts at a gathering in Oakland. “It may actually be harmful.”

But Brown and Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, outlined similar notions of the challenge facing the state as it grapples with reducing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and the 2006 emissions-cutting law AB 32. The simple message: Patterns of development and urban and suburban living likely will have to change, possibly dramatically.

Both Brown and Nichols have been deeply involved in the effort for some time, although they have not always seen eye-to-eye. Brown, under the auspices of the California Environmental Quality Act, has been pressuring local governments and industry to come to grips with greenhouse emissions and the mandates of AB 32 in planning efforts and when contemplating new facilities. The board Nichols chairs has been given primary responsibility for carrying out the greenhouse gas law, and by this June is expected to unveil a proposed blueprint for achieving the statute’s requirement that emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Thursday’s session was the first of five workshops on the issue planned for local government officials this spring.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

It’s not billed as picking winners and losers but a new report issued by consultants to a multi-agency effort planning California’s transmission infrastructure gives some idea of what types of renewable energy projects have a bright future, at least when it comes to getting access to the grid.

The document in effect recommends that for some technologies, including anaerobic digestion and landfill gas, no further planning should be done on access to transmission lines. But it is much more favorable toward technologies such as biomass, solar (both thermal and photovoltaic), small hydro, wind and geothermal. Wave and marine current energy fell into a gray area, with the consultants recommending no further planning right now but instead keeping an eye on further developments.

Prepared by Black & Veatch Corporation, a large international consulting and contracting firm, the report, dated March 14, could be significant because it constitutes a first step in the state’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative, which is often known by its acronym, RETI. The project is designed to take a strategic and unified approach to siting transmission lines to serve renewable generation resources located in California or elsewhere in the West. The next phase of the process involves ranking the cost-effectiveness of delivering power from specific interconnection points.

 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks