FINDING LEGAL PATHWAYS TO DEEP DECARBONIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Posted on July 21, 2016 by John Dernbach

On December 12, 2015, in Paris, France, the parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—a total of 196 countries—unanimously agreed to a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of this century.  For the United States, the technical and logistical challenge of achieving the goal of the Paris Agreement (as it is called) is enormous, but so is the legal challenge.

The U.S. short-term emissions reduction objective, stated in a submission made in the run-up to the Paris conference, is “to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%–28% below its 2005 level in 2025.”  This objective, the U.S. says, “is consistent with a straight line emission reduction pathway from 2020 to deep, economy-wide emission reductions of 80% or more by 2050.”   Achieving the short-term goal depends on the outcome of the presidential election as well as litigation involving the Clean Power Plan.  And there was, until recently, no roadmap for deep U.S. reductions by 2050. 

The absence of long-term analysis, in the U.S. and other countries, is being filled by the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, which is led by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations.  It is based on the work of research teams in 16 countries that are responsible for 74 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions--Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  DDPP says in a report synthesizing the findings of the project to date that most of these countries “had never developed pathways consistent with a global 2°C limit, nor were they actively considering this question.”   (The purpose of the Climate Change Convention is to keep the increase in global temperatures from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions below a “dangerous” level.  That level is widely regarded as 2°C, or 3.6 °F, above pre-industrial levels, although the Paris Agreement seeks to keep the increase “well below” that level.  The temperature increase to date is already about 0.9 °C above 1880 levels, when temperatures were first recorded.)

DDPP has conducted a technical analysis and policy analysis of pathways to deep decarbonization for the United States.  These reports, prepared by E3 (an energy consulting firm), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, appear to be the most detailed studies of how to achieve deep reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  

Perhaps the DDPP’s most important finding “is that it is technically feasible for the U.S. to reduce [carbon dioxide] emissions from fossil fuel combustion” by 85% from 1990 levels by 2050, which is “an order of magnitude decrease in per capita emissions compared to 2010.”  If the U.S. did that, it could reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  

Enormous changes would be required in the U.S. energy system to make those reductions happen.  Because it is difficult to decarbonize gasoline and liquid fuels, the researchers said, meeting the 2050 objective would require almost complete decarbonization of electricity and, among other things, switching a “large share” of end uses that require gasoline and liquid fuels over to electricity (such as electric cars).  It would also be necessary to produce fuel from electricity itself, they said, citing the production of hydrogen from hydrolysis as an example. 

Decarbonizing electricity and producing fuel from electricity itself would double electricity generation but reduce its carbon intensity to 3% to 10% of current levels, requiring a vast increase in either renewable energy (as much as “2,500 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar generation (30 times present capacity))” or carbon capture and sequestration.  The average fuel economy for light duty vehicles such as cars would need to be over 100 miles per gallon, and these vehicles would need to be fueled almost entirely by electricity and hydrogen.  

The challenge of translating these technical and policy pathways into a workable legal framework is considerable.  Assuming, for example, that the U.S. can achieve 54.5 miles per gallon as a fleet-wide average for new vehicles by 2025, as the current Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard requires, how does the U.S. achieve a fleet-wide average of more than 100 miles per gallon for all vehicles by 2050? As DDPP explains, “[t]his would require the deployment of roughly 300 million alternative fuel vehicles by 2050.”  A similar conundrum exists in reliance on renewable energy sources: what legal changes are needed to guide the development of the grid so that it can continue to be reliable while it accommodates a vast increase in intermittent electricity sources such as solar and wind energy?

Michael Gerrard, who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, and I have begun work on an edited volume that will identify and analyze a wide variety of legal pathways to decarbonization in the United States, based on these reports.  We have assembled an excellent team of legal scholars and practitioners and are aiming for publication in 2017.  We hope to inspire similar efforts in other countries.  

An essential part of the decarbonization challenge is proposing, analyzing, and comparing various legal decarbonization pathways in each individual country, including the U.S.  In the face of a daunting challenge, there exists a real possibility that lawyers can help improve human quality of life throughout the world by facilitating the creation of a legal framework that accommodates zero-carbon development.

Talking Climate Change at the Vatican: A Personal Report

Posted on June 21, 2016 by Michael Gerrard

In January my Columbia University colleague Jeffrey Sachs told me that the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (with which he had worked for several years) was organizing a conference at the Vatican to be comprised of judges, prosecutors and legal scholars from around the world to discuss how the law could address the scourge of human trafficking, and that Pope Francis would attend.  He asked my help in identifying some individuals who should be invited, and I was happy to help.

I was not certain that I would be able to go until I received a letter in April from the Academy’s Chancellor, Monsignor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, which began, “Following Pope Francis’ wish, it is my pleasure to invite you” to this meeting on June 3-4. Though the dates conflicted with another commitment, this was an invitation I could not decline, so I found a substitute for that and booked a room in the Crowne Plaza St. Peter’s, as recommended by the Vatican.  I also found a web site with the protocol for addressing certain personages, including the Pope, the Queen of England, and various heads of state.  (The Pope should be addressed as Your Holiness. Catholics should kiss his ring if it is offered; non-Catholics like me should simply shake his hand.)

On the first morning of the conference, I joined other dark-suited men and women in their 50s and older in boarding a bus at the hotel.  After we passed through a side entrance to Vatican City, we traversed narrow tree-lined streets (passing numerous priests in long robes walking to work) and parked at Casina Pio IV, which was completed in 1562 as the summer residence of Pope Pius IV.  The dome of St. Peter’s Basilica loomed behind.  Inside was a conference hall with rows of benches and desks; each desk had a plaque with the name of the person assigned to sit there, a headset for simultaneous translations in several languages, and a microphone that was remotely switched on when it was time to speak. A bust of Pope John Paul II sat above the podium.  Throughout the building were original paintings and sculptures, and many of the ceilings had frescoes from the 16th century. Our meals were served on an outdoor elliptical courtyard.  The buffet featured, along with less surprising fare, many plates of matzo.

The program was opened by Monsignor Sorondo, and then chaired by Valeria Mazza, an Argentinian supermodel from the 1990s and 2000s who did an excellent job of keeping all the speakers to 15 minutes.  The speakers were judges and prosecutors from around the world (including several U.S. federal district court and court of appeals judges) and a few academics like Jeff Sachs and myself.  Many of the judges told stories of the horrific cases of human trafficking they had handled in their courtrooms. 

When my time came to speak, I discussed how increases in trafficking and smuggling often follow large-scale natural disasters; how climate change (such as drought, desertification and sea level rise) will likely cause a massive increase in the number of people displaced from their homes in the decades to come; and that therefore considerably more trafficking and smuggling will ensue, and the nations of the world should begin considering how to cope with these conditions. I quoted several passages in Pope Francis’s landmark Encyclical on Climate Change and Human Inequality, Laudato Si’, including its declarations there “there has been a tragic rise in the number of migrants seeking to flee from the growing poverty caused by environmental degradation,” and that “the establishment of a legal framework which can set clear boundaries and ensure the protection of ecosystems has become indispensable, otherwise the new power structures based on the techno-economic paradigm may overwhelm not only our politics but also freedom and justice.”  (My paper is posted here.)

About two hours before the Pope’s scheduled arrival at the meeting, several large men appeared in and outside the room wearing wires going into their ears. About five minutes before schedule, I heard someone say “he’s here!” A door opened in front of the room, and Pope Francis walked in, wearing his white cassock and skull cap.  He took a seat at the head table. Everyone in the room stood and applauded, and many took out their phones and cameras and started taking pictures.

The Pope gave a talk in Spanish.  He thanked the participants and then discussed how important it is to halt the worldwide scourges of human trafficking and smuggling.  He urged judges “to carry out their vocation and their essential mission of establishing that justice without which there can be no order, or sustainable and integral development, or social peace.”  He spoke of a need to end “the globalization of indifference.” He also stated, “The Enlightenment slogan that the Church must not be involved in politics has no application here, for the Church must be involved in the great political issues of our day. For, as Pope Paul VI pointed out, ‘political life is one of the highest forms of charity.’”

Entering into another current debate, the Pope stated, “[t]here are those who believe that the [Pontifical] Academy would do better to be involved with pure science and theoretical considerations, which would certainly be consonant with an enlightenment vision of the nature of an academy. An academy must have roots, concrete roots; otherwise, it risks encouraging a free-flowing reflection which dissipates and amounts to nothing. The divorce between ideas and reality is clearly a bygone cultural phenomenon, an inheritance of the Enlightenment, but its effects are still felt today.”

After his talk, all were invited to join the Pope in front of the building for a joint photo. A swarm of photographers was waiting outside. After the photos, the Pope shook the hands of many of the participants, including myself, and gave each of us a friendly gaze and a warm smile.  He posed for several selfies. He was jostled around a fair amount by those seeking to say a few words with him, but he seemed to enjoy the scene; indeed his whole demeanor was one of a person who believes strongly that he is doing important work and takes joy in doing it.  Finally he climbed into a small sedan, sat in the front seat, and waved as he was driven away.

As we returned to the meeting hall, there was a collective glow for having spent time with someone who all present, regardless of faith, regard as a great man, and also a renewed commitment to use the law to address some of society’s greatest ills to the extent that our positions and abilities allow.

ABA Task Force to Help Mainstream Sustainability in Law Practice

Posted on December 4, 2013 by John Dernbach

After more than a decade of laying a foundation for sustainability activities, the American  Bar Association is poised to take its act to a higher level with a presidential level Task Force on Sustainable Development.  The Task Force is intended, in no small part, to help mainstream sustainable development into the practice of law. 

Within the practice of law, there is already a small group of lawyers whose work focuses intensively on sustainable development—including renewable energy and energy efficiency, biodiversity conservation, green building, climate change, and smart growth.  They are doing so in response to growing demand from clients, government, and the private sector, as well as rising public expectations about environmental and social performance.  Yet sustainable development remains something of a mystery to many environmental lawyers.  And some environmental lawyers think they understand sustainability when they do not.

The critical task of sustainable development is to integrate environmental and social considerations and goals into otherwise conventional development decisions.  Environmental goals include reduced greenhouse gas emissions, a smaller overall environmental footprint, climate change resilience, reduced toxicity or pollution, and conservation of species and ecosystems.  Social goals include workforce diversity, employee safety and development, and contribution to charitable or community activities. 

Over the past decade, the American Bar Association has developed two tools to enable lawyers to help lawyers move their offices in a sustainable direction and to recognize law organizations that use them.  They are:

•    The ABA-EPA Law Office Climate Challenge, a program to encourage law offices to conserve energy and resources, as well as reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
•    The ABA Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources (SEER) Sustainability Framework for Law Organizations, in which a law organization commits to take steps over time toward sustainability.  

In August, the ABA House of Delegates, which has a significant policy-making role, adopted a resolution that builds on these and other steps toward sustainability.  The resolution — the third major resolution on sustainability it has adopted since 1991--“urges all governments, lawyers, and ABA entities to act in ways that accelerate progress toward sustainability.”  The resolution also “encourages law schools, legal education providers, and others concerned with professional development to foster sustainability in their facilities and operations and to help promote a better understanding of the principles of sustainable development in relevant fields of law.”

In conjunction with this resolution, ABA President James R. Silkenat appointed a Task Force on Sustainable Development to “focus on ways that the ABA can provide leadership on a national and international basis on sustainable development issues.”  The Task Force is chaired by Lee A. DeHihns, a member of the Environmental & Land Development Group at Alston & Bird in Atlanta, Georgia and a former chair of SEER. The Task Force has 20 members (including me), representing government, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and academia.   

The Task Force is planning to create a user-friendly website that contains a variety of sustainability resources for lawyers.  It is also looking at a range of different kinds of educational materials and tools for lawyers and law students on sustainability issues. 

It is increasingly important for lawyers to be able to communicate with clients about sustainability in general, the growing number of sustainability issues that are affecting law practice (including but certainly not limited to climate change), and the ways in which lawyers and others are creating tools and approaches for sustainability.  Law firm innovations for sustainability include the combined use of low income housing tax credits and renewable energy tax credits to finance low income housing that uses solar energy, and legal and financing packages for municipalities that invest in green infrastructure.   

The Task Force is also examining a wide variety of other ways that lawyers and the ABA can “accelerate progress toward sustainability.”  Because the Task Force has one year to complete its work, it is also looking at projects and activities it can complete in that year and longer term projects and activities that can be started in that year but that would need a longer time to finish.  If you have suggestions, contact Lee DeHihns or me.  And stay tuned. 

EPA Proposes Carbon Dioxide Emissions Standard for New Fossil Fuel Power Plants

Posted on April 13, 2012 by Daniel Riesel

By Daniel Riesel and Vicki Shiah, Sive Paget & Riesel, PC

On March 27, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule limiting carbon dioxide (“CO2”) emissions from new power plants fired by fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas.  The rule applies to new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units in the continental United States; they do not apply to existing units or new “transitional” units that already have received preconstruction air emission permits and that start construction within 12 months of the proposed rule’s publication in the Federal Register.

Covered power plants would be required to meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour.  This standard favors natural gas over coal.  EPA states that “[n]ew natural gas combined cycle power plant units should be able to meet the proposed standard without add-on controls.”  By contrast, coal-fired power plants would not be able to meet this standard without carbon capture and storage technology, which is still under development and is expected to be quite costly – though EPA expects that the cost of such technology will decrease over time.

It is not clear whether the proposed regulation will have a significant effect on the energy industry, as the standard appears to reinforce current trends rather than require radical changes.  In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA notes that, at present, “the industry generally is not building” coal-fired power plants and is not expected to do so “for the foreseeable future,” while natural gas is becoming more common as an energy source.   According to EPA, the 1,000 lb/MWh standard is already being met by 95% of natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants that commenced operation between 2006 and 2010.

The proposed rule (a New Source Performance Standard under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act) results from a settlement between EPA and a group of states and environmental groups.  These plaintiffs sued EPA in opposition to the agency’s refusal, in 2006, to establish greenhouse gas emission standards for new and modified power plants.  EPA was required to revisit this decision in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed EPA’s statutory authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the settlement giving rise to the standard proposed last week, EPA had also agreed to establish CO2 emissions guidelines for existing fossil fuel power plants.  EPA has yet to propose such standards, and the time frame for its doing so is uncertain; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently stated, "[w]e don't have plans to address existing plants."

The full text of the proposed rule is available here.  Public comments are being accepted under Docket ID No. EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2011‐0660 at www.regulations.gov for 60 days after the proposed rule’s publication in the Federal Register.

Supreme Court Rejects Common Law Climate Change Suits

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Theodore Garrett

Reversing the Second Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act displaces any federal common-law right to seek abatement of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. American Electric Power Co., Inc., et al. v. Connecticut et al., (No. 10–174, June 20, 2011).

Two groups of plaintiffs including eight states filed complaints in a Federal District Court against five major electric power companies. The complaints alleged that the defendants are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the U.S. and that the defendants’ emissions substantially and unreasonably interfered with public rights by contributing to global warming, in violation of the federal common law of interstate nuisance. Plaintiffs sought for a decree setting carbon-dioxide emissions for each defendant. The District Court dismissed both suits as presenting nonjusticiable political questions, but the Second Circuit reversed and held that the plaintiffs had stated a claim under the “federal common law of nuisance” and that the Clean Air Act did not “displace” federal common law.

In a decision announced on June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court reversed. The court started from the proposition that, since Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, a new federal common law has emerged for subjects of national concern, citing Milwaukee I. But recognition that a subject is proper to be governed by federal law does not necessarily mean that federal courts should create the controlling law.

The test for preemption by Federal legislation, the court held, is whether the statute “speak[s] directly to [the] question” at issue. Here, Massachusetts v. EPA made plain that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The Act directs EPA to establish emissions standards for categories of stationary sources that, “in [the Administrator’s] judgment,” “caus[e], or contribut[e] significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” Once EPA lists a category, it must establish performance standards for emission of pollutants from new or modified sources and existing sources within that category. The Act itself thus provides a means to impose the same relief plaintiffs seek by invoking federal common law.

The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s holding that federal common law is not displaced until EPA actually exercises its regulatory authority by setting emissions standards for the defendants’ plants. The relevant question for displacement purposes is “whether the field has been occupied, not whether it has been occupied in a particular manner.” Here, Congress delegated to EPA the decision whether and how to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Finally, the court stated that the Act’s prescribed order of decision making—first by the expert agency, and then by federal judges—is another reason to resist setting emissions standards by judicial decree under federal tort law. Echoing some of the comments during oral argument, the opinion states that the appropriate amount of regulation in a particular greenhouse gas producing sector requires informed assessment of competing interests. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than federal judges, who lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with such issues.

The Second Circuit did not decide plaintiffs’ claims under state nuisance law. Because none of the parties have briefed preemption or the availability of a claim under state nuisance law, the Supreme Court left that issue for consideration on remand.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Uncommon Claims for Climate Change

Posted on March 25, 2011 by James R. May

Perhaps the most interesting recent injection of constitutional law into environmental policy involves the use of the political question doctrine regarding common law claims. For a half decade, states and individuals have turned to common law causes of action for redress in climate litigation. See James R. May, Climate Change, Constitutional Consignment, and the Political Question Doctrine, 85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 919 (2008). Federal common-law causes of action, including those for public nuisance, provide potential—although imperfect and problematic—means for judicial cognizance of and redress for these effects. See id. Nonetheless, some federal courts have determined the seldom used “political question doctrine” bars them from “entering the climate change thicket,” reasoning the matter is consigned to the coordinate branches of government. Id. at 957-59.

 

This legal development is astonishing, because until recently the political question doctrine had touched only about a half dozen matters—including matters which are demonstrably committed to a coordinate branch of government, require an initial policy determination, lack ascertainable standards, or could otherwise result in judicial embarrassment—that are nonjusticiable. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). For example, the Court has recognized executive power over foreign affairs, impeachment, and treaty abrogation as political questions into which courts ought to decline jurisdiction, finding them to be consigned to the elected federal branches of government under the “political question doctrine.” James R. May, Constitutional Law and the Future of Natural Resource Protection, in The Evolution of Natural Resources Law and Policy 124, 146 (Lawrence J. MacDonnell & Sarah F. Bates eds., 2009). Climate change litigation has now entered this mix, most recently in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., Civ. Action No. 10-174.

 

In the case below, American Electric Power Co., 582 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2009), the Second Circuit held no aspect of the political question doctrine applied to enjoin judicial review. In particular, the circuit court found climate change is neither constitutionally consigned to the elected branches, nor prudentially left to them. The utility defendants filed a petition for certiorari to reverse the Second Circuit’s ruling, arguing (1) states and other plaintiffs lack standing, (2) federal law preempts plaintiffs’ claims, and (3) the case raises nonjusticiable political questions. Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., Petition for Certiorari, Civ. Action No. 10-174; AEP Cert. Petition at i, 13, 20, and 26. In late August 2010, the Obama Administration filed a brief in support of the utility defendants’ petition, arguing plaintiffs lack prudential standing, and federal law displaces the need for common law causes of action for climate change. Brief for Tenn. Valley Auth. in Supp. of Pet’rs , Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., No. 10-174. In its brief, the U.S. Solicitor General’s Office argues (i) first plaintiffs lack prudential standing under the standard articulated in the First Amendment Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004) decision—and largely for the same non-justiciability reasons defendants argue in favor of applying the political question doctrine; and (ii) second, EPA activities during the last 12 months, including the final reporting rule, the proposed tailoring, cement kiln, and light duty truck emission rules, and other activities displace the need for common law causes of action under the standards set in the Court’s Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat'l Sea Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) and Milwaukee v. Ill., 451 U.S. 304 (1981) decisions.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, with Justice Sotomayor recusing herself, which seems to increase the prospects of a 4-4 split. Oral argument in the case is set for April 19, 2011. Whatever the Court decides in AEP v. Connecticut is sure to rock the foundation of climate law and policy for many years – perhaps generations – to come.

A Year After SEC Guidance, Investors Expect Better Climate-related Disclosure

Posted on March 14, 2011 by Christopher Davis

Last year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued interpretive guidance on climate change-related disclosure, a significant step towards focusing companies on addressing this important issue and improving the quality of the information available to investors on this subject. While this guidance caused some companies to reevaluate and improve their disclosure practices, overall disclosure of the risks and opportunities presented to companies by climate change remains inadequate.

 

That is the finding of Disclosing Climate Risks & Opportunities in SEC Filings: A Guide for Corporate Executives, Attorneys & Directors, a new Ceres report intended as a practical guide for companies and their advisors on how they should respond to the SEC disclosure regulations and the interpretive guidance, so that they can ensure they are disclosing all material climate-related information.

 

Developed with input from members of the Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), which includes 95 investors managing over $9 trillion in assets, the report offers the investor perspective on climate-related disclosure. It closely examines the disclosure practices of over a dozen companies across multiple sectors, highlighting some industry leaders—like electric power company AES Corp. and technology company Seimens—for disclosure that quantifies material climate issues and provides additional important details.

 

However, in the case of every company examined, there was room for improvement. And the report found that for many companies, disclosure was non-existent or unhelpful boilerplate. The main takeaways from the report are that companies should be doing more comprehensive analysis of climate risks and opportunities applicable to their business, compiling more consistent and quantified information, and that they should be disclosing it where investors look to find it, both in their voluntary reporting and, where material, in their annual mandatory filings.

 

ACOEL piece on SEC guidance available here.

 

Disclosure report is available here.

Are we willing to pay for environmental protection?

Posted on February 16, 2011 by Kenneth F. Gray

I am sure that the many supporters of greenhouse gas regulation are depressed at the apparent failure of a comprehensive climate change law at the federal level, and guess that many of them blame corporate America and “misguided” conservatives, based on my read of the popular press. Climate change legislation has carried a substantial price tag.

“If the American people only knew how bad it was and is likely to get, the public would be willing to pay a lot,” climate change advocates might object. “And they ‘got it’ in California, and rejected the proposed suspension of the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act until the unemployment rate fell.”

But is it the state of the national economy – a temporary phenomenon -- or is it a reflection of lack of national consensus that the costs of a climate change law are currently perceived as unbearable under most circumstances? How much are we willing to pay for environmental protection anyway?
 

Putting aside the very important questions of whether we have accurate information on risks and costs, we typically make personal decisions based on perceived risk -- and guess at costs. And we are able to do so as a society when we have consensus on those perceived risks and general cost estimates.

My view is that Americans decide to pay for environmental protection only when we are pretty confident it won’t adversely affect us economically and even then only when it is an apparent crisis. It is pretty clear there is no consensus we are in crisis over climate change, but there is a broader question on whether Americans are willing to pay costs for environmental protection even when the risks are generally acknowledged as real.

The major national environmental laws were passed when there was a national consensus that action was absolutely necessary. The Clean Air Act was adopted when air was visibly dirty and pollution inversions were not uncommon, the Clean Water Act when significant rivers were polluted or catching fire, and TSCA when PCBs were deemed an actionable threat. Costs were significant but bearable overall in the robust national economy, and there were large gains in pollution control obtainable even though the cost significantly impacted some businesses and industries. Climate change legislation has seemingly threatened significant cost increases for most consumers – you can even find blogs on it. Consumers happen to be voters, and (outside of California) until convinced there is a real problem and a solution they can afford, my guess is that national climate change legislation won’t get popular support. (The author hales from California, and therefore feels free to acknowledge that the state has only a passing similarity to, and relationship with, the other 49 states.)

What about requiring vehicle emissions testing and certifications of efficiency? Some states have such programs as required under the CAA, consistent with the fact that cost-effective air emission reductions are achieved, compared to the hammering local industry further to lower pollution. A number of states do not have vehicle emissions testing, and three states (including Florida and Minnesota) have discontinued testing. Maine tried a program years ago, but quickly abandoned it when consumers protested that they had to wait in lines, pay for testing, and in some cases got inconsistent results. No such legislation has been reproposed in the Pine Tree State. Ironically, many Mainers are proud of their (otherwise) stringent environmental laws.

Indoor radon gas has been widely recognized as a serious health issue by environmental professionals where it exists, but there is no comprehensive radon testing requirement, much less a remediation requirement. The risks are real, but how do you perceive a threat from an invisible, odorless gas?

Lead paint exposures have long been perceived as posing local but material risks for anyone living in housing stock of a certain age, given the historic use of lead paint and depending upon its condition. Most states don’t require testing or remediation or encapsulation of lead paint. Just a guess: it will cost some real money.

Watch the national environmental debate, and see if Americans are making decisions based on the condition of the family budget.
 

Time for Climate Change Change?

Posted on December 29, 2010 by Linda Bullen

The climate change debate soldiers on, despite set-backs at the national level. The California Air Resources Board, for example, has released the first state level cap and trade proposal, which remained open for public comment until December 15, 2010. Despite a handful of such gallant efforts to address global warming through legislative means, few, if any, political attempts to address the issue have succeeded. Perhaps this is a reflection, as recent polls suggest, of a waning public belief, at least in some circles, that global warming is man-made. Equally likely, however, is wide spread economic distress, which takes immediate precedence in the lives of many.

 

Since pervasive legislative solutions to global climate change do not seem to be in the offing, perhaps the time is upon us to examine and adopt an approach to carbon emissions concerns which is scientifically effective and cost-effective alike. Rather than implementing grand political initiatives such as cap and trade, perhaps we should think about implementing measures which can be implemented by individuals and communities at the local level. Measures such as painting the roofs of buildings in hot climates white, implementation of passive solar heat collection in homes and businesses, lowering thermostats in the winter and carpooling can all be implemented inexpensively or can actually save money, while at the same time having the direct effect of reducing carbon emissions. Personally, I have always been a big proponent of the use of public transportation. It makes both economic and environmental sense and certainly reduces an individual's carbon footprint.

 

In short, there are measures which we, as individuals, and more collectively, as communities, can do which address climate change that can be effective yet would not have negative economic consequences. While such measures will never replace legislative solutions, they are a step in the right direction while we await the enactment of more comprehensive legislative responses.

Should We Go Nuclear - Again?

Posted on November 29, 2010 by Rodney Brown, Jr.

The US hasn't licensed a new nuclear power plant in a quarter-century. Most people have forgotten the plants even exist – but they might be coming back. In the last couple of years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received more than twenty new plant applications.

Are we ready to go nuclear again?

 

 

The US has about 100 nuclear plants in operation today, generating around 20% of the nation's electricity. Most plants were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and will need to be replaced before too long. Far more plants have been built abroad, and many of them will need to be replaced too.

 

 

Replacing worn-out nuclear plants with new ones is very controversial, at least in the US. Our colleague, Michael Gerrard, will explore the controversy by hosting a debate on nuclear power at Columbia Law School on Monday, November 29th from 7 to 9 PM. The debate will be webcast live, and a video will be posted on the website of the Center for Climate Change Law. Contact Ashley Rossi at arossi@law.columbia.edu for more info.

 

 

In the meantime, how can we learn what to believe — and what not to? Fortunately, in 2007 the Keystone Center conducted a "joint fact-finding" to identify facts upon which people with different policy goals could absolutely agree. The participants came from all over, ranging from utilities like Exelon and Entergy to environmental groups like Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council. They may continue to disagree on the values implicit in their various policy goals. But it turns out that they can agree on a foundation of facts.

 

 

For example, all agreed nuclear power is in fact a low-carbon energy source that can help fight climate change. They also agreed that the global nuclear industry would in fact need to embark on a massive construction program if nuclear power is to provide even 1 gigatonne of carbon reductions (equal to just one "wedge" from the famous Sokolow & Pacala climate stabilization wedges. Here's the specific factual finding:

 

"The NJFF participants agree that to build enough nuclear capacity to achieve the carbon reductions of a Pacala/Socolow wedge (1 GtC/year or 700 net GWe nuclear power; 1,070 total GWe) would require the industry to return immediately to the most rapid period of growth experienced in the past (1981-90) and sustain this rate of growth for 50 years."

 

On another point, the participants agreed that nuclear power probably would cost between 8 and 11 cents per kilowatt/hour (kW/h) delivered to the grid. This compares to current natural gas costs of about 5 to 6 cents per kW/h. (Wind power's costs fall somewhere in between.)

 

 

On the controversial topic of using new technologies to "reprocess" nuclear fuel, participants agreed it wasn’t likely to prove economically viable:

 

"No commercial reprocessing of nuclear fuel is currently undertaken in the U.S. The NJFF group agrees that while reprocessing of commercial spent fuel has been pursued for several decades in Europe, overall fuel cycle economics have not supported a change in the U.S. from a “once-through” fuel cycle. Furthermore, the long-term availability of uranium at reasonable cost suggests that reprocessing of spent fuel will not be cost-effective in the foreseeable future. A closed fuel cycle with any type of separations program will still require a geologic repository for long-term management of waste streams."

 

Agreement on all the true facts might make it easier to resolve the debate over nuclear power's role in our energy future. To learn more about them download the Keystone Center's executive summary or the report in full.

Climate Legislation Is Dead (For Now): Long Live Conventional Pollutants

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Seth Jaffe

Climate change legislation is dead for now. I won’t pretend it’s not depressing, even though I avoid the political channels and ignore the rhetoric. For those of us who haven’t refudiated climate change science, it’s a victory for the pessimists and evidence that Congress has a hard time addressing long-range problems, even if consequential.

With respect to regulation of GHG, it’s the worst of both worlds and no one should be happy (which is why I held out hope until the end that cooler heads would prevail). We’re still going to have regulation of GHG, the mechanism being EPA’s recently promulgated Tailoring Rule for GHG. One word. Ugh. Does this really make climate skeptics happy? Do they really think that they will somehow succeed in rolling back the Tailoring Rule? I don’t think so. On the other hand, we don’t have an economy-wide cap-and-trade or carbon tax regime. Are environmentalists happy? I still don’t think so. 

I’m left feeling a little like Rodney King. Certainly, the issue isn’t going to go away before the next Congress is sworn in.

As I have noted before, however, problems with climate change legislation don’t mean that Congress can’t enact legislation further regulating traditional pollutants. The three-pollutant bill now before the Senate already has a Republic co-sponsor, Lamar Alexander. Now, according to a report in E&E Daily, even Senator Inhofe is stating that he’s interested in working with Democrats to move three-pollutant legislation. Given the failure to move GHG legislation, hell is likely to get hotter before freezing over, but if Inhofe can really be brought on board, there’s no reason why legislation couldn’t pass.

Three-pollutant legislation shares one significant feature with the GHG issue. Like GHG regulation, efficient regulation is hampered by limitations in existing law, as we saw with the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the trading regime in the CAIR regulations, and EPA’s much more limited trading program in the Transport Rule. Senator Voinovich, another Republican that three-pollutant legislation supporters would like to have with them, noted as much, saying that the transport rule would be a "stringent and inflexible regime." New legislation could provide for a more robust trading regime. We’ll see if that’s enough to bring Republicans on board.

I sure hope so. Right now, all we’ve got is a GHG regulatory program that won’t do much for climate change, but will cause my clients endless headaches, and a Transport Rule that’s probably the best EPA can do on traditional interstate pollution, but not nearly as cost-effective as it might be with new legislative authority. I remain an optimist, but sometimes it’s difficult.

China Points To Population Control As Climate Change Strategy

Posted on July 26, 2010 by Stephen E. Herrmann

The population issue has not received much comment when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC).

 

 

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao.

 

 

Zhao cites studies that link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change, saying:

 

“Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 percent and 60 percent of emissions growth,” citing the 2009 State of World Population report, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

 

 

Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of China’s society.

 

 

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said. The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions.”

 

 

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: “Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton” whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 for electric vehicles."

 

 

Zhao admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

 

 

Whether, and, if so, how, population control should be an active part of a country’s climate control is certainly a difficult political and cultural issue – but one that fast-growing economies such as China, India, and Brazil may have to face in the coming years.

China Points To Population Control As Climate Change Strategy

Posted on July 26, 2010 by Stephen E. Herrmann

The population issue has not received much comment when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, Vice Minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC).

 

 

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao.

 

 

Zhao cites studies that link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change, saying:

 

“Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 percent and 60 percent of emissions growth,” citing the 2009 State of World Population report, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

 

 

Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of China’s society.

 

 

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said. The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions.”

 

 

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: “Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton” whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 for electric vehicles."

 

 

Zhao admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

 

 

Whether, and, if so, how, population control should be an active part of a country’s climate control is certainly a difficult political and cultural issue – but one that fast-growing economies such as China, India, and Brazil may have to face in the coming years.

Livable Communities -- And How to Achieve Them

Posted on June 10, 2010 by Seth Jaffe

With work on financial reform almost complete, Senator Dodd announced this week that his remaining legislative priority is the enactment of the Livable Communities Act, S. 1619. There is a companion house bill, H.R. 4690. A hearing on the Senate bill will be held tomorrow.

It’s hard to be against livable communities and I may just be getting crotchety, but this legislation seems some combination of pointless and misguided. The legislative findings discuss traffic congestion, the percentage of oil used for transportation and CO2 generated from transportation, and the need to encourage and sustain compact development and historical town centers.  And we’re going to solve this – or even make a dent – by making grants to “micropolitan” statistical areas? I don’t think so.

I agree that sprawl is a problem. I support transit-oriented development. However, there are reasons why we see development where we sit it in the United States. People still like the freedom and flexibility of personal automobile use. If we think that all that driving causes externalities – and I do – I’ve got two words for you: carbon tax. Until we make people internalize the cost of their living choices, they will continue to make those same choices and money spent on encouraging livable communities will be largely wasted. If we can’t summon the political will to tax carbon, we shouldn’t pretend that we’re solving the problem by spending money on micropolitan areas.

SEC Issues Interpretative Guidance on Climate Change Disclosures

Posted on June 7, 2010 by Michèle Corash

by Michele B. Corash and Robert L. Falk

Morrison & Foerster LLP

San Francisco, California

 

 

In the first quarter of 2010, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a potentially significant “interpretative release” providing guidance to public companies on their disclosure obligations relating to climate change (Release Nos. 33-9106; 34-61469). The release focused on recent business and legal developments regarding climate change and advised companies to more carefully evaluate the impact these developments may have on their business and whether such impact should be disclosed. 

 

As a technical matter, an interpretive release by the SEC does not create new legal requirements. Instead, it furthers a policy objective by “clarifying” the applicability of current SEC rules. In this case, the relevant SEC rules require the disclosure of material items associated with the impact of climate change on a business and cover a company’s risk factors, business description, legal proceedings, and management discussion and analysis. 

 

While the SEC’s Chair, Mary Schapiro, has carefully noted that this interpretive release should not be construed as the SEC making a statement about the facts surrounding climate change or global warning, the release does acknowledge an increase in climate-related legislation and international accords, as well as changing business trends where environmental issues have the potential to create new risks or opportunities for companies. In fact, in the release, the SEC specifically provided the following examples of areas where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements:

 

  •  Impact of Legislation and Regulation:  When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should consider whether the impact of certain existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material.  In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.
  • Impact of International Accords:  A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.
  • Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends:  Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies.  For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends.
  • Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes, the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.[1]

SEC Commissioner, Luis Aguilar, in speech discussing the SEC’s interpretive release concerning climate change, provided further guidance. He cautioned that each company “should ensure that it has sufficient information regarding [its] greenhouse gas emissions and other operational matters to evaluate the likelihood of a material effect arising from the subject legislation or regulation.”[2] Additionally, the SEC has long reminded companies that in determining whether certain information is material, the company should err on the side of disclosure.

The guidance provided in the SEC’s interpretive release is effective immediately and should be considered during the preparation of all future public company annual reports and SEC filings.



[1] Interpretative Release “Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change,” dated February 2, 2010, is available at: http://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf.

[2] Speech by SEC Commissioner Luis A. Aguilar: Responding to Investors’ Requests for SEC Guidance on Disclosures of Risks Related to Climate Change, dated January 27, 2010, available at: http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/2010/spch012710laa-climate.htm

"CLIMATEGATE" GOES TO COURT

Posted on May 6, 2010 by Mark Walker

By now, everyone is familiar with "Climategate", the scandal surrounding the hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. The inner workings of CRU are significant because the CRU is responsible for preparing the land temperature records upon which most of the climate change studies are based and which, more importantly, form the foundation for the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming. The e-mails at issue include many e-mails which had previously been requested by numerous Freedom of Information requests, but which East Anglia had refused to produce, including e-mails relating to the preparation of the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report.


The CRU Temperature "Adjustments"


Most people probably think that land temperature records are the product of the rather mundane ministerial task of collecting and reporting actual temperature readings from weather stations around the world. However, there are numerous "adjustments" to the actual temperature readings which are made by CRU. There are adjustments made to account for the different times of day that the readings are taken. In addition, it is well recognized that urban areas artificially increase the measured temperature because materials like concrete, asphalt and metal structures collect and retain heat during the day and release the heat during the night. This artifact, known as the "urban heat index" (UHI), must be accounted for in the land temperature records. The magnitude of the proper adjustments for UHI are the subject of intense scientific debate, and the extent of any adjustments made for UHI serve to reduce global warming attributed to manmade greenhouse gases. Scientists that have studied UHI have also made subjective calls as to which weather stations to include and exclude in their studies, thereby injecting another "adjustment" into the equation. Numerous Freedom of Information requests had been made to and resisted by East Anglia for the underlying raw temperature data and the UHI adjustments that CRU made to such data, as well as requests for the underlying data upon which the Director of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, had based his previous UHI studies.
 

EPA Endangerment Finding Based Upon IPCC Assessments


As one of the foundational components of the IPCC's assessments, the accuracy of CRU's temperature records have far reaching implications. The IPCC assessments were relied upon by the United States Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, and were a cornerstone of the EPA's Endangerment Finding in response to Massachusetts.

 


Commonwealth of Virginia's Challenge to Endangerment Finding


Although there have been numerous challenges to EPA's Endangerment Finding, several have specifically raised Climategate as the basis for their challenges. Noteworthy are the separate challenges filed by Virginia and Texas. In its challenge, Virginia claims that the Climategate e-mails demonstrate that the, "CRU scientists questioned the reliability of their own data, the methodologies used in developing and analyzing such data, and the conclusions based thereon." Virginia maintains that the EPA had a duty to independently investigate and verify the accuracy of the CRU temperature records upon which most of the climate change research and IPCC assessments are based. In addition, Virginia claims that the, "EPA substantially ceded its obligation to make a judgment whether GHGs may endanger public health and welfare to the IPCC, an international body that is not subject to U.S. data quality and transparency standards."

 


State of Texas' Challenge to Endangerment Finding


Texas' 38 page Petition for Reconsideration takes the drama and intrigue to the next level, painstakingly discussing the Climategate e-mails, the context in which they were made, and the conclusions which Texas maintains should be drawn therefrom:
"Previously private email exchanges among top IPCC climatologists reveal an entrenched group of activists focused less on reaching an objective scientific conclusion than on achieving their desired outcome. The scientists worked to prevent contravening studies from being published, colluded to hide research flaws, and collaborated to obstruct the public's right to public information under open records laws."


The future of Climategate in the courts is uncertain. It may eventually be viewed as the event that exposed the political agenda behind some of the climate change "science", or it may be viewed as a tempest in a teapot. In any event, its inclusion in these legal proceedings ensures that Climategate will for the foreseeable future be included in the ongoing climate debate and certainly that it will survive beyond the usual 24 to 72 hour news cycle.

Is There a New Era of Environmental "Veto" Legislation?

Posted on February 24, 2010 by Charles Nestrud

Will environmental issues play a prominent role in the upcoming elections? It appears so, particularly if your state’s Senior Democratic Senator is up for re-election, and is also Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D. Ark.) cast the deciding vote in the Senate for health care reform, and received the typical “big government, liberal” moniker. Seven Republicans have lined up to run against her, and her $5 million (and growing) campaign war chest. But how will the competing campaigns deal with environmental issues? Senator Lincoln has a lifetime score of 49% on environmental issues from the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental activist group she has proudly referred to as “extremists.” Of the Democratic Senators up for re-election, Sen. Lincoln ranks the lowest. Labels are easy to assign,  but are rarely very accurate.   

The school of thought at the end of 2009 was that either Congress would enact climate change legislation prior to March of 2010, or EPA would enact its own climate change rules to implement the impending endangerment rulemaking. Not so fast. Not only is there no climate change legislation, Congress is now debating S.J. Resolution 26: “Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute to findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (published at 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (December 15, 2009), and such rule shall have no force or effect.”

 

Is SJ-26 a purely partisan move, with no chance of passage? Perhaps. Just note that Senator Lincoln is a prominent co-sponsor, one of 40 senators who have signed on, one of three Democratic co-sponsors, all of whom are up for re-election (Ben Nelson, D. Neb. and Mary Landrieu, D. La.  being the others). Not all Republicans signed on—Scott Brown, newly elected from Massachusetts, passed on this one.   

Environmental groups have already started running radio attack ads in Arkansas. Even though the ads give Senator Lincoln a “dirty air” label, Senator Lincoln is likely hoping the voters are listening—hoping that she gains notoriety for opposing what she labels “job killing” climate change regulations—notoriety that may improve her standing with Arkansas voters come election time. (Again with the labels)   

SJ-26 is not Senator Lincoln’s first foray into the climate change debate. At the end of October, 2009 Senator Lincoln attached a little known rider as a last minute addition to the current budget—a rider that now prohibits EPA from spending any money to require livestock producers to report GHG emissions under the new GHG reporting rules. As Chairman of the Agricultural Committee, she could pull this one off. Cattle and pigs may be flagellant, accounting for 1.7% of all GHG emissions (more by some estimates). But for now EPA cannot make anyone count up the farts, at least not for this fiscal year (ending September 30, 2010). Whether EPA should, or should not have included livestock producers in the GHG reporting rule is a judgment call, and one that we can all disagree upon. The importance of the farm vote in Arkansas, however, cannot be over estimated. And for those who believe this is just a matter of Southern politics (or “pork”), the same budget bill included a last minute exemption for 13 Great Lakes cargo steamships from a proposed EPA rule to require lower sulfur fuel.

Is this form of Congressional veto legislation a new era of environmental regulation? Some have referred to these efforts as borrowing from the Newt Gingrich playbook. Those who have followed these issues more closely than me will have to answer that one. For now, it’s just the beginning of what will prove to be a very interesting political season. Sen. Lincoln trails the leading contenders in recent polling. 

"The Increasing Role of Constitutionalism in Environmental Law: It's Less Boring Than That Suggests!"

Posted on February 17, 2010 by James R. May

On February 26, 2010, Dan Farber, Doug Kysar, Rob Glicksman and I will be on a panel at Georgetown about emerging issues at the intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law. We'll puzzle over recent developments and the constitutional shape of environmental law to come. There is much to discuss. We have the limitations on judicial involvement, say, the political question doctrine and the treaty clause in the context of climate litigation. Summer suggests that Scalian standing is alive and well, and that procedural standing is hardly, er, left standing. And then there are 1:1 ratio limits to awards of punitive damages in cases involving environmental harm with which to contend under substantive due process.

Federalism could experience resurgence. Oneida and Kelo give the states an opening to do more (and do worse). Yet preemption still looms large (as with cap & trade), and sovereign immunity jurisprudence has diminished state accountability.

And of course, there is an enfeebled Congress, which behaves as if its powers are as a majority of the Supreme Court imagined them to be in 1935. While non-delegation is still in desuetude, and Raich revived rational basis review of Commerce Clause authority for the time being, it's any wonder that Congress delivers so little about national environmental challenges these days. Or anything else, for that matter. But if we're really at war, then how about Congress using its war powers to address environmental challenges that impinge upon national security, like climate change? And does Missouri v. Holland give Congress authority unbridled by the 10th Amendment to address international environmental issues, say, water pollution? Climate change?

Which brings us back to Article II separation of powers, and Chevron. For the next 2 1/2 years, all may learn to love Justice Alito's interpretive approach in last term's Kensington.

What does the future hold? Who knows, except for ineffective congressional responses and a Supreme Court that seems at least skeptical about national environmental programs. So maybe a constitutional devolution of sorts. Opportunities abound for constitutional innovation under the General Welfare and Due Process Clauses, or invocation of state (here and elsewhere) provisions that putatively provide a right to a healthy environment.

And if judicial takings are constitutionally cognizable (this term's Beach Renourishment), then why not sustainable development under the Privileges & Immunities or Equal Protection Clauses, or the 9th Amendment?

Or maybe not. It is, after all, a constitution we are expounding.

BLANKENSHIP-KENNEDY DEBATE CLIMATE CHANGE

Posted on January 28, 2010 by David Flannery

On January 21, 2010 thousands packed the auditorium at the University of Charleston in Charleston West Virginia and tuned in on television and radio for the debate between Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Asked about his primary concerns for the future of energy, Mr. Blankenship stated that they were the security of this country and improving the quality of life in this country and throughout the world. This answer became somewhat of a theme for Mr. Blankenship, as he stated his concern for the health and well-being of people, which is dependent on their quality of life, which is heavily dependant on affordable electricity, which is heavily dependent on coal.

When asked the same question, Mr. Kennedy offered several minutes of comments similar to other speeches he has given around the country concerning Appalachia and coal in which he highlighted his families’ ties to West Virginia along with his views against surface mining.

The audience, having a near equal number of supporters from both sides, was relatively subdued thanks to early pleas from University of Charleston President and event moderator Dr. Welch to hold-off applause until the end. At times, however, both debaters received loud applause for their answers to questions.

Throughout the debate, Mr. Kennedy stated the many health and environmental issues he believed to be caused by coal, while Mr. Blankenship reminded Mr. Kennedy that many of his biggest issues with coal, such as the burning of coal and its contribution to Mercury in water, are primarily caused by other countries with much a higher usage of coal, such as China and India.

Mr. Kennedy also focused a great deal on alternative energy, such as wind and solar energy, as well as West Virginia’s need to switch its focus on these alternative energy sources. Mr. Blankenship responded that if it was profitable to build solar panel fields or wind farms, without government subsidies, it would be happening at a greater rate than is occurring. Blankenship stated that his company is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the coal industry because that is where the investment will pay off in a free enterprise market.

While the security at the event mirrored that of international flight travel, the debate itself was a success, going off without much disturbance other than the occasional burst of applause.

BLANKENSHIP-KENNEDY DEBATE CLIMATE CHANGE

Posted on January 28, 2010 by David Flannery

On January 21, 2010 thousands packed the auditorium at the University of Charleston in Charleston West Virginia and tuned in on television and radio for the debate between Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Asked about his primary concerns for the future of energy, Mr. Blankenship stated that they were the security of this country and improving the quality of life in this country and throughout the world. This answer became somewhat of a theme for Mr. Blankenship, as he stated his concern for the health and well-being of people, which is dependent on their quality of life, which is heavily dependant on affordable electricity, which is heavily dependent on coal.

When asked the same question, Mr. Kennedy offered several minutes of comments similar to other speeches he has given around the country concerning Appalachia and coal in which he highlighted his families’ ties to West Virginia along with his views against surface mining.

The audience, having a near equal number of supporters from both sides, was relatively subdued thanks to early pleas from University of Charleston President and event moderator Dr. Welch to hold-off applause until the end. At times, however, both debaters received loud applause for their answers to questions.

Throughout the debate, Mr. Kennedy stated the many health and environmental issues he believed to be caused by coal, while Mr. Blankenship reminded Mr. Kennedy that many of his biggest issues with coal, such as the burning of coal and its contribution to Mercury in water, are primarily caused by other countries with much a higher usage of coal, such as China and India.

Mr. Kennedy also focused a great deal on alternative energy, such as wind and solar energy, as well as West Virginia’s need to switch its focus on these alternative energy sources. Mr. Blankenship responded that if it was profitable to build solar panel fields or wind farms, without government subsidies, it would be happening at a greater rate than is occurring. Blankenship stated that his company is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the coal industry because that is where the investment will pay off in a free enterprise market.

While the security at the event mirrored that of international flight travel, the debate itself was a success, going off without much disturbance other than the occasional burst of applause.

SCOTT BROWN'S ELECTION - ONE MORE SET-BACK FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION?

Posted on January 27, 2010 by Michael Hockley

When Scott Brown was elected to fill Senator Kennedy’s senate seat, news reports highlighted the impact on health care legislation and the loss of the filibuster-proof sixty vote Democratic majority in the Senate. In environmental circles, however, many commentators pointed out the potential impact on climate change legislation. 

 

Prior to his election, most believed that once Congress passed the health care bill, it would turn its full attention to climate change legislation and pass some form of legislation to limit green house gas (“GHG”) emissions. The loss of this key Democratic Senate seat makes the prospect of GHG legislation in the near future seem less likely, although some commentators take the contrarian view. They argue that if health care reform moves to the back burner, the chances of passing a climate bill would increase because Democrats need a major legislative victory to bolster the 2010 election efforts.

 

Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) finding the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), some form of mandatory GHG controls, either through legislation, regulation, or a combination of both, has seemed inevitable. In response to the Massachusetts decision, EPA and Congress have been moving on parallel tracks to regulate GHG emissions. 

 

EPA has issued a number of proposed and final rules, including a final mandatory GHG reporting rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 56260 (Oct. 30, 2009), an Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding that motor vehicle GHG emissions contribute to GHG pollution and threaten public health and welfare, 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (De. 15, 2009), and a proposed “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title 5 Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” 74 Fed. Reg. 55292 (Oct. 27, 2009), among others. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also announced a joint proposal to establish light duty vehicle GHG and mileage standards for model years 2012 through 2016.

 

In response to concerns expressed by both industry and environmental interests that the CAA is not the best vehicle for regulating GHGs, factions in the House and the Senate have proposed sweeping legislation to reduce GHG emissions, the Waxman-Markey Climate Change bill, H.R. 2454, “The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,” in the House of Representatives, and  the Boxer-Kerry bill, the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” in the Senate.  Both include GHG emissions reductions targets and use a cap and trade scheme to achieve those goals. In addition, they include a variety of other measures to encourage investment in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency. 

 

In recent months, efforts to move forward with this legislation seems to have been eclipsed by efforts to pass comprehensive  health care legislation, but the conventional wisdom was that some form of legislation would be passed once health care was put to rest. Now that the Democrats have lost a filibuster-proof super majority, prospects for climate change legislation seem to be dimming.

 

On the EPA regulatory front, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has been on the attack, trying to prevent EPA from promulgating GHG regulations that limit emissions from major sources. Most recently, she filed a “disapproval resolution” on January 22, 2010, seeking to retroactively veto EPA’s endangerment and cause or contribute findings that GHGs endanger public health and the environment, thereby .blocking EPA’s GHG regulations. 

 

A disapproval resolution is a procedural mechanism that prohibits executive branch agency rules from taking effect. It only requires 51 votes and is not subject to filibuster rules. Senator Murkowski claims to have the backing of 39 other senators, including three Democrats, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb., and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). She introduced this resolution on the heels of Scott Brown’s election, and she does not expect this resolution to reach the floor for a vote before Scott Brown is sworn into office.

Even if she is able to garner 51 votes in the Senate, the House must pass a similar resolution, and it must be signed by the President to go into effect. Even if it does not succeed, it signals a widespread lack of support, even among Democrats, for legislation controlling GHG emissions this year.  Scott Brown’s election should make it more difficult to enact climate change legislation, especially with an election season just around the corner because his election is being interpreted by many to signal the electorate’s disapproval of the Obama agenda. 

 

In the meantime, if there is no climate change legislation passed, EPA likely will continue to move down the regulatory path of limiting GHG emissions using its authority under the CAA.

MIXED RESULTS FOR OREGON CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

Posted on August 3, 2009 by Rick Glick

In my February 23, 2009 posting, I described Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski’s ambitious agenda for state action to reduce green house gases (GHG). But then the tumbling economy got in the way and GHG lost its position at center stage. Still, some things did get done in the session that ended last month.

 

Oregon had already adopted renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS) for its electric utilities, adopted California automotive emissions standards and had the nation’s most generous business energy tax credit (BETC). This year the plan was to add a GHG cap and trade program and establish fuel standards, among other things.   Some of it passed, some didn’t, and the Governor has said little as to which he will sign into law.

 

SB 80 would have established the cap and trade program, in line with the Western Climate Initiative, but failed. The principle reason seems to be that a federal bill may be imminent. That legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill (HR 2454) passed the House on June 26 by a razor thin vote along party lines (219-212). The bill includes a provision pre-empting state legislation. Its fate is in the Senate, where it will need at least 60 votes to survive a filibuster, and the final shape of the bill is anyone’s guess. If it appears a federal cap and trade bill is not achievable or indefinitely delayed, SB 80 is likely to be reintroduced in Oregon in some form.

Other climate bills did pass. 

 

  • SB 38 authorizes a rulemaking to require registration and reporting for import to the state of electricity or fossil fuels. 
  • SB 101 establishes a GHG standard for electricity generation and prohibits utilities from long-term financial commitments for resources that do not meet the standard, effectively banning import of coal fired plant output. 
  • HB 2186 calls for development of a standard to reduce GHG emissions from transportation fuel 10% by 2020 and to conduct a study on retrofitting of trucks to make them more efficient; this element was proposed as mandatory, but a compromise calling for the study was adopted. This provision is intended to piggy-back on a California study of improving existing truck efficiency. HB 2186 also established a task force to look at reducing GHG emissions through integrated land use and transportation planning. 
  • HB 3039 promotes solar energy and provides a 2:1 RPS credit for each kWh produced from a qualifying facility operational before January 1, 2016 and that generates at least 500 kW. The bill sets a limit of 20 MW of capacity for the RPS credit. 

 

  • HB 2940 allows RPS credits for biomass facilities in place before 1995, capped at 100 MW. There are 8 biomass plants and one garbage burner in the state. This controversial bill was not proposed by the utilities, rather it was driven by the Oregon forest products industry in the interest of maintaining jobs and to provide a source of income for declining mills. Thought the bill had broad bi-partisan support among legislators, many observers see it as inappropriate to give RPS credits to old generating plants, predicting that existing hydropower will be right behind. The concept behind RPS for many is to offer an incentive for new development of renewable resources, not to reward existing ones. As of this writing the Governor has not acted on the bill but is known to be considering a veto.

 

  • HB 2472 modifies the BETC to include manufacture of electric vehicles among the industries eligible for the credit, along with renewable energy facilities and manufacturers of equipment for renewable energy production. The BETC was reduced to match budget concerns, and the Governor is also considering a veto of this bill in the interest of keeping Oregon competitive to attract clean tech business.

All eyes now shift to the U. S. Senate to see if there will be federal GHG controls enacted. It may take a while, these things take time.

MIXED RESULTS FOR OREGON CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION

Posted on August 3, 2009 by Rick Glick

In my February 23, 2009 posting, I described Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski’s ambitious agenda for state action to reduce green house gases (GHG). But then the tumbling economy got in the way and GHG lost its position at center stage. Still, some things did get done in the session that ended last month.

 

Oregon had already adopted renewable energy portfolio standards (RPS) for its electric utilities, adopted California automotive emissions standards and had the nation’s most generous business energy tax credit (BETC). This year the plan was to add a GHG cap and trade program and establish fuel standards, among other things.   Some of it passed, some didn’t, and the Governor has said little as to which he will sign into law.

 

SB 80 would have established the cap and trade program, in line with the Western Climate Initiative, but failed. The principle reason seems to be that a federal bill may be imminent. That legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill (HR 2454) passed the House on June 26 by a razor thin vote along party lines (219-212). The bill includes a provision pre-empting state legislation. Its fate is in the Senate, where it will need at least 60 votes to survive a filibuster, and the final shape of the bill is anyone’s guess. If it appears a federal cap and trade bill is not achievable or indefinitely delayed, SB 80 is likely to be reintroduced in Oregon in some form.

Other climate bills did pass. 

 

  • SB 38 authorizes a rulemaking to require registration and reporting for import to the state of electricity or fossil fuels. 
  • SB 101 establishes a GHG standard for electricity generation and prohibits utilities from long-term financial commitments for resources that do not meet the standard, effectively banning import of coal fired plant output. 
  • HB 2186 calls for development of a standard to reduce GHG emissions from transportation fuel 10% by 2020 and to conduct a study on retrofitting of trucks to make them more efficient; this element was proposed as mandatory, but a compromise calling for the study was adopted. This provision is intended to piggy-back on a California study of improving existing truck efficiency. HB 2186 also established a task force to look at reducing GHG emissions through integrated land use and transportation planning. 
  • HB 3039 promotes solar energy and provides a 2:1 RPS credit for each kWh produced from a qualifying facility operational before January 1, 2016 and that generates at least 500 kW. The bill sets a limit of 20 MW of capacity for the RPS credit. 

 

  • HB 2940 allows RPS credits for biomass facilities in place before 1995, capped at 100 MW. There are 8 biomass plants and one garbage burner in the state. This controversial bill was not proposed by the utilities, rather it was driven by the Oregon forest products industry in the interest of maintaining jobs and to provide a source of income for declining mills. Thought the bill had broad bi-partisan support among legislators, many observers see it as inappropriate to give RPS credits to old generating plants, predicting that existing hydropower will be right behind. The concept behind RPS for many is to offer an incentive for new development of renewable resources, not to reward existing ones. As of this writing the Governor has not acted on the bill but is known to be considering a veto.

 

  • HB 2472 modifies the BETC to include manufacture of electric vehicles among the industries eligible for the credit, along with renewable energy facilities and manufacturers of equipment for renewable energy production. The BETC was reduced to match budget concerns, and the Governor is also considering a veto of this bill in the interest of keeping Oregon competitive to attract clean tech business.

All eyes now shift to the U. S. Senate to see if there will be federal GHG controls enacted. It may take a while, these things take time.

BIOFUELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Posted on June 23, 2009 by Christopher Davis

Biofuels are the subject of much recent interest and investment, as indicated by a recent Wall Street Journal article on biomass fueled power plants. Given the increasing scrutiny that is being given to “green” marketing claims by the Federal Trade Commission and various citizen groups (and the potential for SEC scrutiny of similar claims in public offering prospectuses), care should be taken to analyze and document the basis for any claims of carbon neutrality or other environmental benefits associated with particular biofuels.  

 Advantages cited by biofuel proponents include reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as compared to fossil fuels, energy security, benefits from domestic production and green job creation. Downsides of biofuels production can include displacement of food crops and increased food prices, deforestation and conversion of grasslands to crop lands, GHG emissions associated with growing and converting biofuels, and other environmental impacts such as nutrient runoff and water consumption.
 

 

While all biofuels are renewable energy sources, this category includes a variety of liquid and solid fuels with a variety of sources and uses. For example, power plants can utilize biomass, generally in the form of wood or municipal solid waste. In the transportation arena, fuel can be made from corn and cellulose-based ethanol, or oils from soybeans, palm oil or animal wastes that can be used directly or chemically processed into biodiesel. Additional types of biofuels include syngas and algae-derived fuels. 

Numerous “clean tech” companies as well as established energy multinationals have invested in biofuels production. Examples include Mascoma Corporation and Verenium Corporation (cellulosic ethanol), Changing World Technologies (biodiesel from animal waste), GreenFuel Technologies (algae-based fuel) and Biogas Energy and Harvest Power (methane from agricultural wastes). Large energy and waste management companies are also investing heavily in biofuels, including Covanta (biomass-fired power plants), BP, Chevron, and Shell Oil (bio-ethanol and biodiesel), and Waste Management (landfill gas). The market for biofuels is sensitive to oil prices and demand for transportation fuels, as evidenced by recent bankruptcies and economic distress in the corn-based ethanol industry.

Biofuels are supported by a variety of federal and state mandates, subsidies and tax credits. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a renewable fuel standard, and this standard was increased by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Further, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides financial assistance to biorefineries, funding for advanced biofuels and biomass research, biomass crop assistance, and tax credits for cellulosic ethanol production, among other measures. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides for loan guarantees, tax credits, and Department of Energy research related to biofuels and biomass energy.   Ethanol proponents are pressing Congress to further increase the mandate for ethanol use in transportation fuels, but many groups are simultaneously opposing such an increase.

Biofuels are often claimed to be “carbon neutral” (i.e., producing no net GHG emissions), because the plants from which they are derived only emit the same amount of carbon they would have released if they naturally died and decomposed, as compared to fossil fuels that release carbon stored in the earth’s crust that would not have been emitted. But not all biofuels are equal and generic claims of carbon neutrality need further scrutiny. 

Recently, a number of studies have attempted to assess the lifecycle GHG emissions of various biofuels. For example, several studies, including a leading study by the University of Minnesota and a California study performed in association with its low-carbon fuel standard, have concluded that corn-based ethanol may result in minimal net GHG emission reductions or even net GHG increases. This conclusion has been supported by scientists from The Nature Conservancy in a study published in Science that examines the GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of land use changes involved in the production of various biofuels. They conclude that there are significant differences in the “carbon footprint” of different biofuels based on how and where the underlying crops are grown.    In its recent proposed regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard, EPA has proposed to require evaluation of GHG emissions over the full lifecycle of various biofuels and to establish life cycle GHG emission reduction thresholds as compared to a lifecycle emissions analysis of baseline petroleum fuels – a requirement that is opposed by corn-based ethanol proponents.

It is clear that advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and some types of biodiesel, hold great promise to reduce GHG emissions from transportation and other fuel uses. Such biofuels are clearly part of the solution in mitigating climate change and developing a sustainable energy economy, but careful scrutiny is needed to ensure that the full life cycle GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of biofuels are considered by policymakers and investors.

Posted by Christopher P. Davis, Goodwin Procter LLP

BIOFUELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Posted on June 23, 2009 by Christopher Davis

Biofuels are the subject of much recent interest and investment, as indicated by a recent Wall Street Journal article on biomass fueled power plants. Given the increasing scrutiny that is being given to “green” marketing claims by the Federal Trade Commission and various citizen groups (and the potential for SEC scrutiny of similar claims in public offering prospectuses), care should be taken to analyze and document the basis for any claims of carbon neutrality or other environmental benefits associated with particular biofuels.  

 Advantages cited by biofuel proponents include reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as compared to fossil fuels, energy security, benefits from domestic production and green job creation. Downsides of biofuels production can include displacement of food crops and increased food prices, deforestation and conversion of grasslands to crop lands, GHG emissions associated with growing and converting biofuels, and other environmental impacts such as nutrient runoff and water consumption.
 

 

While all biofuels are renewable energy sources, this category includes a variety of liquid and solid fuels with a variety of sources and uses. For example, power plants can utilize biomass, generally in the form of wood or municipal solid waste. In the transportation arena, fuel can be made from corn and cellulose-based ethanol, or oils from soybeans, palm oil or animal wastes that can be used directly or chemically processed into biodiesel. Additional types of biofuels include syngas and algae-derived fuels. 

Numerous “clean tech” companies as well as established energy multinationals have invested in biofuels production. Examples include Mascoma Corporation and Verenium Corporation (cellulosic ethanol), Changing World Technologies (biodiesel from animal waste), GreenFuel Technologies (algae-based fuel) and Biogas Energy and Harvest Power (methane from agricultural wastes). Large energy and waste management companies are also investing heavily in biofuels, including Covanta (biomass-fired power plants), BP, Chevron, and Shell Oil (bio-ethanol and biodiesel), and Waste Management (landfill gas). The market for biofuels is sensitive to oil prices and demand for transportation fuels, as evidenced by recent bankruptcies and economic distress in the corn-based ethanol industry.

Biofuels are supported by a variety of federal and state mandates, subsidies and tax credits. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a renewable fuel standard, and this standard was increased by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Further, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides financial assistance to biorefineries, funding for advanced biofuels and biomass research, biomass crop assistance, and tax credits for cellulosic ethanol production, among other measures. In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides for loan guarantees, tax credits, and Department of Energy research related to biofuels and biomass energy.   Ethanol proponents are pressing Congress to further increase the mandate for ethanol use in transportation fuels, but many groups are simultaneously opposing such an increase.

Biofuels are often claimed to be “carbon neutral” (i.e., producing no net GHG emissions), because the plants from which they are derived only emit the same amount of carbon they would have released if they naturally died and decomposed, as compared to fossil fuels that release carbon stored in the earth’s crust that would not have been emitted. But not all biofuels are equal and generic claims of carbon neutrality need further scrutiny. 

Recently, a number of studies have attempted to assess the lifecycle GHG emissions of various biofuels. For example, several studies, including a leading study by the University of Minnesota and a California study performed in association with its low-carbon fuel standard, have concluded that corn-based ethanol may result in minimal net GHG emission reductions or even net GHG increases. This conclusion has been supported by scientists from The Nature Conservancy in a study published in Science that examines the GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of land use changes involved in the production of various biofuels. They conclude that there are significant differences in the “carbon footprint” of different biofuels based on how and where the underlying crops are grown.    In its recent proposed regulations for the National Renewable Fuel Standard, EPA has proposed to require evaluation of GHG emissions over the full lifecycle of various biofuels and to establish life cycle GHG emission reduction thresholds as compared to a lifecycle emissions analysis of baseline petroleum fuels – a requirement that is opposed by corn-based ethanol proponents.

It is clear that advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol and some types of biodiesel, hold great promise to reduce GHG emissions from transportation and other fuel uses. Such biofuels are clearly part of the solution in mitigating climate change and developing a sustainable energy economy, but careful scrutiny is needed to ensure that the full life cycle GHG emissions and other environmental impacts of biofuels are considered by policymakers and investors.

Posted by Christopher P. Davis, Goodwin Procter LLP