Climate Change – Page 2 – Global Power Law & Policy

Join Us! Energy Storage Association Webinar: Energy Storage, Trade and China

May 13 2020

Please join K&L Gates’ Elizabeth Crouse on the Energy Storage Association’s upcoming webinar, Energy Storage, Trade and China, on Thursday, May 21 from 12:00 PM – 1:00 CDT.

This webinar will explore the key trade and national security policies that currently impact the ESS market in the U.S. and assess their potential impacts on future deployments, including:

• How might regulatory developments under the Executive Order impact storage?
• What might the future hold for tariffs?
• How do these processes play out in an election year?

For more information and to register, please click here.

Treasury to Extend Deadlines for Accessing Wind, Solar Tax Credits

May 07 2020

Author: Elizabeth Crouse

This afternoon, the Office of Legislative Affairs at the Department of Treasury, issued a letter to Charles Grassley, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, indicating that Treasury intends to issue administrative relief to the solar and wind industries regarding certain investment tax credit (“ITC”) and production tax credit (“PTC”) deadlines. Although the letter does not provide any details as to the nature of this relief, Chairman Grassley’s April 23, 2020 letter to Treasury requested that the four-year safe harbor for the continuous construction and continuous efforts test for the PTC and ITC be extended to a five-year safe harbor period.

Chairman Grassley did not request administrative relief concerning the impact of COVID-19 related measures taken by manufacturers and shipping companies on a customer’s “reasonable expectation” that materials purchased in 2019 would be delivered within 3.5 months after payment. This latter provision is important for purposes for establishing beginning of construction of solar projects in 2019.

United States Announces Intent to Withdraw From Paris Climate Accord: What is the Real Impact?

Jun 19 2017

By William M. Keyser, Laurie B. Purpuro, Cliff L. Rothenstein, Alyssa A. Moir, and Christina A. Elles

On June 1, President Trump declared that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord (the “Agreement”). His announcement, though not unexpected, raises a host of questions on several legal, technical, and policy fronts. And while the news and commentary on President Trump’s position continues to change, three fundamental questions are worth asking:

Paris Agreement to Enter into Force: Implications for Enforcement in the United States and Internationally

Oct 26 2016

By Ankur K. Tohan, Alyssa A. Moir, David L. Wochner, Cliff L. Rothenstein, and Christina A. Elles, K&L Gates

Global policy on climate change and greenhouse gas regulation is poised to take a significant step forward as the Paris Agreement (“Agreement”) enters into force just before international climate negotiations resume in Morocco next month. The 22nd “conference of the parties” (“COP-22”) will be held in Marrakech, Morocco, November 7 through 18, 2016, and will be the first time that parties to the Agreement gather after its ratification. Signatories to the Agreement include 191 countries and represent 95 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Now the hard work of implementing the Agreement begins. Parties are expected to start to reduce emissions under the Agreement in 2020, with a long-term goal of holding global temperature increase well-below 2 degrees Celsius. Meeting this goal requires steep reductions in carbon—for the United States, this will impact sectors of the economy that have not yet seen significant carbon regulation, such as oil refineries, cement makers, paper processers, chemical companies, and other manufacturers and will require continued reductions via the deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, decreasing use of hydrofluorocarbons and methane, and motor vehicle emissions regulations.

To read the full alert of K&L Gates HUB, click here.

CEQ Issues Final Greenhouse Gas Guidance Directing Federal Agencies to Consider Climate Change in their NEPA Reviews

Aug 05 2016

By Craig Wilson, Cliff Rothenstein, Sandra Safro, Ankur Tohan, David Wochner and Michael L. O’Neill

On August 2, 2016, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a final version of its guidance to federal agencies requiring the consideration of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and effects on climate change when evaluating potential impacts of a federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ explains that it does not expect the Final Guidance to be applied to federal actions for which a NEPA review has been concluded or actions for which a final environmental impact statement or environmental assessment has been issued. As discussed in greater detail below, although the Final Guidance is not legally binding on federal agencies, various aspects of the document have the potential to delay permitting timelines as agencies determine whether and how to incorporate the Final Guidance into their reviews and very likely will add to the level of review that agencies undertake.

To read the full alert, click here.

The Washington State Department of Ecology Reissues Clean Air Rule

Jun 17 2016

By Ankur Tohan, Alyssa Moir and Alyssa M. Fritz

On June 1 the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) reissued a draft Clean Air Rule (“CAR”). A prior iteration of the rule was filed on January 6, 2016, but was withdrawn by Ecology to address and incorporate feedback from stakeholders and covered parties. Ecology anticipates that the revised CAR will be finalized sometime in September 2016; comments on the proposed rule are due by July 22, 2016.

Like the withdrawn rule, the intent of the reissued CAR is to establish emission standards to cap and reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from in-state stationary sources, petroleum product producers and importers, and natural gas distributors. The CAR would cover two-thirds of all in-state GHG emissions, including both public and private sector parties.

According to Ecology, some of the changes in the reissued rule include “incorporating mechanisms to ensure emissions are reduced while supporting business growth; recognizing early actions already taken to reduce emissions; and an effective pathway for power plants.”

Reactions to the reissued CAR have been mixed. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the costs of implementing the program and the potential costs to energy customers. Others have asserted that the proposal would not sufficiently reduce emissions to protect the environment.

Below, we address what parties could be affected by the reissued rule, how the rule would operate, and the different options for compliance. We also outline the significant changes and significant omissions in the reissued CAR as well as the key dates for stakeholder input and covered party compliance.

Click here to read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB.

High Court Grants Stay of Clean Power Plan

Feb 10 2016

On February 9, 2016, in an historic and unprecedented decision, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) from implementing the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) while the rule is challenged in lower courts. The decision is a victory for twenty-nine states and state agencies, along with several industry and trade groups (the “Petitioners”), who appealed the D.C. Circuit’s January 21, 2016 decision not to stay the CPP.

The Petitioners argued to the Supreme Court that the EPA does not have the Clean Air Act authority to implement the CPP, which they assert would reorganize the entire electric power sector of the U.S. economy. The petitioners persuaded the U.S. Supreme court that there was a reasonable probability that four justices would agree to hear the case, that there was a fair prospect that the majority of the court would find that the CPP was unlawful, and that irreparable harm would have resulted from the denial of the stay.

Paris Climate Talks Conclude: Key Takeaways from a Critical Meeting

Dec 14 2015

Intense climate negotiations in Paris have now concluded for the 21st “conference of the parties” (or COP-21) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Until quite late in the process, many big-picture questions remained unresolved, including the enforceability of emissions limitations plans under the agreement, compensation for loss, and the target limit for global temperature rise. The resolution of these questions will be summarized below, with initial commentary on the results of the negations and questions going forward.

Leading up to and during the negotiations, media reports reflected optimism among global stakeholders seeking limits to greenhouse gas emissions, and expectations for an historic deal ran high. This ambitious agenda redoubled during the talks themselves, when low-lying island nations and scientists sought to tighten temperature increase targets from 2 degrees Celsius to 1.5 degrees Celsius. As discussed below, while the agreement reflects a new level of commitment to cutting carbon, the high expectations were not met entirely in the final accord.

Clean Power Plan Legal Battles Commence while EPA Fine-Tunes Incentives and Enforcement Mechanisms

Nov 13 2015

EPA published the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) regulations in the Federal Register late last month. The CPP is the landmark climate change rule championed by the Obama Administration that requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants nationwide. Almost immediately, opponents lodged petitions seeking review of the rule, with some petitioners also seeking a stay of the rule.

EPA releases final version of Clean Power Plan

Aug 03 2015

EPA issued the Clean Power Plan in its final form today, August 3, 2015. The rule in effect reshapes energy policy nationwide by setting state-by-state carbon emission standards that all states must achieve through a combination of producing energy more efficiently, reducing energy demand, shifting away from coal-fired generation toward natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy, and encouraging state and regional policies such as renewable portfolio standards and cap-and-trade programs. The final rule contains significant changes from the version proposed in 2014, including backing down from an initial earlier deadline for compliance, axing energy efficiency as the fourth “building block” for state targets, increasing the targeted GHG reductions to 32% below 2005 levels by 2030 (up from 30%), and using uniform carbon emissions rates for similar types of power plants.[1] Read More

Catagory:Climate Change