President Obama Vetoes Congressional Disapprovals

As anticipated, President Obama has vetoed the Congressional resolutions to disapprove of the Clean Power Plan and the New Source Performance Standards under the Congressional Review Act.  In his Memorandum of Disapproval on S.J. Res. 23 (NSPS) and Memorandum of Disapproval on S.J. Res. 24 (CPP), President Obama states: “Climate change poses a profound threat to our future and future generations” and that the Clean Power Plan “is essential in addressing the largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in our country.”

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , | Comments Off on President Obama Vetoes Congressional Disapprovals

MATS Remain in Effect Pending Agency Efforts on Costs

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit decided to remand the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) to EPA without vacating the rule.  Last month, the Supreme Court held that EPA needed to consider costs before deciding whether a regulation is appropriate and necessary, finding that EPA acted unreasonably in deeming cost irrelevant to its MATS rule. The Supreme Court sent the rule back to the D.C. Circuit.  By remanding without vacatur, the D.C. Circuit denied the requests of multiple state and industry petitioners to throw out the rule entirely at this point.  EPA intends to issue its final finding by April 15, 2016.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , | Comments Off on MATS Remain in Effect Pending Agency Efforts on Costs

195 Countries Agree to Take Action on Climate Change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties in Paris culminated on Saturday, December 12, 2015, with nearly 200 countries reaching an agreement to address climate change.  The Paris Agreement  requires large-scale reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as part of a nearly universal effort to “[h]old[] the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels” (Article 2.1(a)).  Key elements at the heart of the Paris Agreement include:

  • Emissions Targets.  The parties have agreed to set national emissions targets every five years in Article 4.  Developed countries are required to set economy-wide emissions reduction targets.  Developing countries are given more flexibility to tailor emissions abatement to their particular national circumstances, but are encouraged to move toward set limitation targets over time.  Beginning in 2023 there will be a “global stocktake” every five years, described in Article 14, to assess the progress made towards the Agreement’s long-term goals.
  • Transparency.  While the Agreement does not impose penalties on countries that fail to meet their emissions targets, it aims to encourage accountability through transparent reporting of efforts and progress.  Article 13 of the Agreement establishes a transparency framework that requires countries regularly to provide information related to anthropogenic emissions, climate change impacts, and adaptation, while Article 15 creates an expert-based committee to facilitate implementation of and compliance with the Agreement.
  • Financing.  Article 9 of the Paris Agreement requires developed countries to provide financial resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation, and encourages other countries to do so voluntarily.  Although the preamble to the Agreement refers to the goal of at least $100 billion in financial support from developed countries, this figure is not a legally binding financial commitment.
  • Loss and Damage.  The Agreement recognizes the importance of avoiding and addressing loss and damage associated with climate change; however, in Article 8 and the preamble, it specifically does not provide any basis for liability or compensation for climate-change related loss or damage.

The Paris Agreement embodies a global commitment to addressing climate change, but leaves much to the discretion of the parties.  Specifically, the Agreement lacks definite and binding emissions reduction targets, allowing parties to set their own targets.  Nonetheless, the Paris Agreement lays the groundwork for international action to address climate change.

The Agreement will not be binding on parties until at least 55 parties to the Convention, accounting for at least 55% of total GHG emissions, ratify the Agreement by depositing their instrument of ratification or acceptance with the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Article 21).  For the U.S. in particular, it appears unlikely that the ratification of the Agreement will require Senate approval because the Agreement does not obligate the U.S. to make specific emissions cuts or contribute particular funds.

The Agreement will be opened for signature April 22, 2016 through April 21, 2017, and will be open for ratification by the parties from April 22, 2017 onward (Article 20).

This post was written by guest authors Amber Martin and Jeff Bayne. 

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on 195 Countries Agree to Take Action on Climate Change

CPP Handbook for Consumer Advocates

This week, Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. released a Clean Power Plan Handbook: A Guide to the Final Rule for Consumer Advocates, prepared for the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates.  This handbook provides a summary of the final CPP and highlights areas where there may be specific consumer concerns.  For example, the handbook discusses how unit retirements may provide different benefits in a rate- or mass-based plan.  There is also the opportunity for consumer advocates to be involved in coordination at the intrastate and multi-state levels.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Comments Off on CPP Handbook for Consumer Advocates

EPA Fires Back at Motions to Stay

On December 3, 2015 the EPA filed its response to petitioners’ motions to stay in West Virginia v. EPA.

In response to the movants’ claims that they are likely to succeed on the merits, EPA reviews the justification that it provided in the CPP and accompanying legal memorandum for its statutory authority to promulgate the rule.

In response to the movants’ claims that they will suffer irreparable harm if the rule is not stayed during the judicial review period, EPA stresses both the timing of and the range of compliance options offered in the rule.  Specifically, it states that in comparison to the short judicial review period, states that choose to submit a final plan have up to three years to do so and reductions are not required before 2022.  In highlighting the flexibility that states have in choosing compliance options, EPA also argues that due to that flexibility, industry petitioners’ claims that the rule will lead to the immediate closure of power plants and coal mines are speculative.  EPA also stresses that if a state chooses to do nothing it will not be sanctioned.  In EPA’s words, “by allowing states to design their own plans, [the CPP] offers them a carrot that they are free to refuse.”

Both the motions and EPA’s response foreshadow the arguments that the parties will be raising in opposition to or in defense of the Clean Power Plan during the substantive briefing stage of this case.  However, because the bar for a request to stay is high, the court’s ruling on the motions is not necessarily a dispositive indicator of the way the court will ultimately rule on the merits.

[PM UPDATE] On December 8, 2015, the parties who have moved to intervene in the case on behalf of EPA filed their briefs opposing the motions to stay:

  • States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Cities of Boulder, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and South Miami, and Broward County, Florida (collectively, States and Municipalities)
  • Calpine Corporation, the City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy, the City of Seattle, National Grid Generation, LLC, New York Power Authority, NextEra Energy, Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Southern California Edison Company (collectively, Power Companies).
  • American Lung Association, Center for Biological Diversity,  Clean Air Council, Clean Wisconsin, Coal River Mountain Watch, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Kanawha Forest Coalition, Keepers of the Mountains Foundation, Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, and West Virginia Highland Conservancy (collectively, Environmental Health and Public Health Intervenors).
  • Advance Energy Economy, American Wind Energy Association, Solar Energy Industries Association (collectively, Advanced Energy Associations)
Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on EPA Fires Back at Motions to Stay