Tag: Clean Power Plan

1
Trump Administration Releases Clean Power Plan Replacement Proposal
2
Oregon Lawmakers Consider Carbon Pricing Legislation
3
Update on EPA’s Clean Power Plan
4
K&L Gates Environmental Policy Quarterly Covers Clean Power Plan
5
EPA’s Clean Power Plan: A Regional Analysis
6
EPA releases final version of Clean Power Plan

Trump Administration Releases Clean Power Plan Replacement Proposal

Advancing President Trump’s campaign promise to end the “war on coal,” on August 21, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) proposed a new rule to replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (“CPP”). Unlike the CPP, the proposed Affordable Clean Energy Rule (the “ACE Rule”) does not set numerical standards or targets for greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Instead, the ACE Rule would give states flexibility to set their own standards of performance for existing coal-fired power plants. EPA asserts that the ACE Rule will eventually reduce GHG emissions to a similar extent as the CPP would have; however, according to EPA, the ACE Rule would reduce GHG emissions by 1.5% by 2030, compared to 32% by 2030 under the CPP. Interested parties will have 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register to comment on the ACE Rule.

To read the full alert, click here.

Oregon Lawmakers Consider Carbon Pricing Legislation

By Ankur K. Tohan, Alyssa A. Moir, Buck B. Endemann, Christina A. Elles

This is the second installment in the West Coast Carbon Policy Update — Three Part Series, which will examine carbon policies along the West Coast in Washington, Oregon, and California.

On March 28, 2017 President Trump signed an executive order instructing the Environmental Protection Agency to withdraw and rewrite the Clean Power Plan, but lawmakers in Oregon are pushing ahead with statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. Oregon lawmakers are currently considering several carbon pricing bills — including a cap-and-trade program, a carbon tax, a cap-and-fee program, and a GHG emission rule issued by the state’s environmental agency — that will add a pricing component to the state’s GHG goals.

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

 

Update on EPA’s Clean Power Plan

Late last month, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) submitted briefs to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in support of its Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) rule.  The agency’s briefs were filed in response to a challenge against the rule brought by industry groups and states (“Petitioners”).  Amici curiae briefs on both sides of the issue were also filed by several cities, states, advocacy groups, and companies.  The D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments on the legality of the CPP in June.  In February, the United States Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the CPP until the resolution of these legal challenges.

Since the stay of the CPP, states have operated under uncertainty and have taken different approaches to planning for the potential implementation or invalidation of the rule.

This alert provides a timeline of the events leading to the current status of the CPP, a summary of the different legal arguments in front of the D.C. Circuit, and a brief overview of different state approaches and strategies to plan for the potential implementation of the CPP.

Read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB.

K&L Gates Environmental Policy Quarterly Covers Clean Power Plan

The latest edition of the K&L Gates Environmental Policy Quarterly focuses on (1) EPA’s Carbon Pollution Standards and Clean Power Plan, (2) congressional efforts to streamline environmental reviews of infrastructure projects, and (3) EPA’s draft Assessment on the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources. We are delighted to include contributions by a number of K&L Gates lawyers who focus on these matters on a daily basis.

Read the Environmental Policy Quarterly

EPA’s Clean Power Plan: A Regional Analysis

EPA’s recently issued Clean Power Plan (“CPP” or “Plan”) affects every state differently. The Plan has a decidedly nationwide impact—reducing the United States’ power plant greenhouse gas emissions 32 percent by the year 2030. But the Plan functions entirely on a state-by-state level, treating each state in a different way based on its unique emissions profile. In this way, the Plan seeks to harness the power of federalism to achieve its ambitious goals.

While the target-based approach is in some ways similar to the structure of EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the CPP has revised and reordered certain elements, and has modified the targets for carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions required by individual states. Although NAAQS are set on a nationwide basis, under the CPP every state has a different carbon target based on a calculus that includes the state’s emissions profile and energy mix. Thus, some states (like Montana and West Virginia) are subject to greater emission reductions than other states (like Idaho and Maine). And while states have some flexibility to determine how to meet their targets, the devil will be in the details, as evidenced by EPA’s compliance pathway chart.

Read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB

EPA releases final version of Clean Power Plan

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

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.