Tag: clean power plan

The Energy Paradigm Has Shifted

Leave a comment

I am very pleased to welcome guest-blogger Joe Tomain, who is Professor and Dean Emeritus at University of Cincinnati College of Law. Joe is also co-author, with regular guest-blogger Alexandra Klass and three other scholars, of a new energy law and policy text.

By Joe Tomain

On June 2 of this year, the Obama administration announced its Clean Power Plan (CPP).[1] This announcement is a game changer and it shifts the energy paradigm. Those phrases are often overused, however, in this instance they are fully apposite for two reasons.

First, the federal government has linked energy and the environment in ways in which they have not been linked in the past. This bringing together of energy and the environment is an essential move towards an effective energy transition for reasons that I will develop below. The second reason that this is a game changing move is because for too long the word in the street has been that the federal government will not take the lead in climate change efforts. The Clean Power Plan refutes that tightly held belief.

In one sense, the promulgation of the CPP is not surprising. Indeed, over 40 years of energy policy studies indicates that a transition away from a fossil fuel economy is a desirable policy preference.[2] Early studies, such as Limits to Growth[3] in 1974 and Amory Lovins’ Soft Energy Paths[4] in 1977 were critical of the dominant model of energy policy that relied on large-scale, capital-intensive, centralized energy projects particularly those wedded to fossil fuels and nuclear power. Those studies were wary of continued reliance on dwindling oil and natural gas resources.

The next wave of energy studies was born out of necessity and reaction to the energy crises of the 1970s. The distorted natural gas market, the bollixed wage and price controls on oil, the Arab Oil Embargo followed by the Iranian Embargo, and the collapse of the nuclear power industry all in a few years, put energy in the news in ways that it had not been before. Not only was energy a matter of industry and economic concern, consumers were frustrated by waiting and gas lines and were frustrated with rising energy bills. Studies by the Harvard Business School, the Ford Foundation, and Resources for the Future urged the United States to wean itself from reliance on Middle East oil precisely because of the threat of further economic dislocations.[5] To be sure, the studies also touted resource and energy conservation but did not put forward an aggressive plan for renewable resources or for energy efficiency.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the next energy crisis – energy was out of the news for the last decades of the 20th century even though our dependence on foreign oil continued to increase through 2006. In the beginning of the 21st century, however, energy policy studies began to ramp up again. Bipartisan think tanks and nongovernmental organizations began publishing energy policy studies that continued warnings about dependence on foreign oil.[6] This new wave of studies, however, added a particular dimension to the energy policy discussion – the environment. A precursor for these studies was the UN report Our Common Future[7]that popularized the idea of sustainability for natural resources as well as for energy in order to improve the plight of everyone on the planet.

On the domestic front, the new energy policy studies concentrated on the environmental impacts of our traditional fossil fuel energy policy and began to highlight the challenges presented by climate change. In short, the policy community began to adopt a fairly wide consensus on the need for a transition to clean energy resources particularly renewable resources and energy efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan is of a piece with the trend to a cleaner future. More specifically, by linking energy and the environment, the CPP is breaking a barrier that has long existed between the disciplines of energy law and policy and environmental law and policy. It is a bit of an historic anomaly that the discipline of energy law was born in the mid-1970s in response to the crises noted above. The curiosity is that environmental law, particularly with the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act and associated environmental laws, was created as a discipline at the dawn of the 1970s. So, then, even though these two disciplines were developed close in time, they not only acted independently of each other they relied a separate set of assumptions, vocabularies, and metrics.[8]

Even though, energy law became known as a discipline in the 1970s, it had its predecessors. The most immediate predecessor was public utilities regulation. Energy law also incorporated elements of oil and gas laws and natural resources laws. By examining that welter of law, one can see that state common law and statutory law focused on the exploration and extraction of the natural resources used to produce energy. Federal laws, then, focused on the transportation, transmission, and distribution of those resources and of the electricity produced from them. In short, energy law was about exploration, production, and transportation and was grounded in the core assumption that the more energy that was produced and consumed, then the greater and more robust the economy would be.

Environmental laws were not chiefly concerned about extraction and production of resources as such. Instead, environmental laws addressed resource protection and conservation. Additionally, environmental laws focused on ecology and the human and natural environments in order to create more healthy ecosystems. Consequently, the metrics for energy law dealt energy prices, economic productivity, and the like. Environmental metrics measured the cleanliness of the water we drink, in the air we breathe, and the number of species we preserve.

At a superficial level, given the fact that energy and environmental systems are complex, the fact that they are independent regulation makes some sense. However, the physical reality is that throughout the fuel cycle from exploration to distribution to consumption, environmental consequences follow each step of that cycle. Energy and environmental laws and regulations, then, are physically linked to each other and, therefore, should be coordinated. Until the CPP, they have not been so treated.

Thus, the first significance of the Clean Power Plan is to have these two disciplines begin to address each other and to find a common language. Linking energy and the environment is a necessary step toward a clean energy future.

The second significant development of the CPP is that the federal government is now assuming a leadership role as long urged. Several of the policy studies mentioned above, as well as more recent ones, emphasize the need for federal leadership if energy and climate change are to be addressed in any meaningful way. [9] In part, the call for federal leadership resides in the fact that the US consumes 25% of the world’s energy resources and emits about 25% of the world’s greenhouse gases. If any international progress is to be made on the climate front, then the United States must play a leadership role.

On the domestic side, federal leadership is desirable for any number of reasons including the fact that while state energy initiatives are valuable in and of themselves, interstate coordination can advance a clean energy transition. On the electric side, for example, transmission line siting, a coordinated market for renewable energy credits, effective cost allocation for the development of the smart grid, and a rationalized set of renewable portfolio standards could benefit from national leadership. On the natural gas side, uniform disclosure rules for fracking chemicals, national water standards, and the like may help alleviate many of the concerns surrounding hydraulic fracturing. Further, the matter of energy subsidies, for both fossil and clean fuels, should be addressed responsibly and uniformly and national leadership in this arena should yield beneficial official results.

Thus, the Obama administration’s CPP is an important as well as necessary step in moving away from a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy future precisely because it begins to merge energy and the environment and puts federal leadership in play.

 

[1] Carbon Pollution Emission Guideline for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, Fed. Reg. June 18, 2014) available at http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/clean-power-plan-proposed-rule.

[2] Joseph P. Tomain, Ending Dirty Energy Policy: Prelude to Climate Change chs. 3 and 4 (2011).

[3] Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome=s Project on the Predicament of Mankind ch. IV (1974).

[4] Amory B. Lovins, Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace (1977).

[5] Robert Stobaugh & Daniel Yergin (eds.), Energy Future: Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School (1979); Ford Foundation, Energy: The Next Twenty Years (1979); and, Sam H. Schur, et al., Energy in America’s Future: The Choices Before Us(1979) (Resources for the Future study).

[6] See e.g. Energy Future Coalition, Challenge and Opportunity: Charting a New Energy Future (2003) available at http://energyfuturecoalition.org/Resources; National Commission on Energy Policy, Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges (2004) available at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/4000/ending_the_energy_stalemate.html; and,Natural Resources Defense Council, A Responsible Energy Plan for America (2005).

[7] World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987).

[8] Amy J. Wildermuth, The Next Step: The Integration of Energy Law and Environmental Law, 31 Utah Envt’l L. Rev. 369 (2011); Alexandra B.  Klass, Climate Change and the Convergence of Environmental and Energy Law, 24 Ford. Envt’l L. Rev. 180 (2013); Joseph P. Tomain, The Politics of Clean Energy: Moving Beyond the Beltway, 2 San Diego J. Climate & Energy L. 299 (2011-12).

[9] See e.g. Challenge and Opportunity, supra note 6; A Responsible Energy Plan for America, supra note 6; Ending the Energy Statelmate, supra note 6; Institute for  21st Century Energy, Energy Works for US: Solutions for Securing America’s Future 3 (2013) (Energy Works) available at http://www.energyxxi.org/energy-works-for-us;  William Norhdaus, Climate Casino (2013).

 

U.S. Supreme Court Narrows Greenhouse Gas Rules: What It Means for the U.S. Climate Agenda

Leave a comment

Today, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a portion of the United States’ first regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources. The Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may not apply its “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD) program to new industrial sources on the basis of their greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, EPA can only regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new sources that are already subject to the PSD program because they emit other pollutants.

This is the first Supreme Court decision on EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from industrial sources, so it has important implications for EPA’s future climate agenda—including its recently proposed rule for the electricity sector. And the varied opinions offered by the Supreme Court justices offer hints about how courts will approach the inevitable legal challenges to those regulations.

EPA’s PSD program has two basic requirements:

1) You need a permit before you build a new major industrial source of air pollution.

2) And to get a PSD permit, you must show that you are using the “best available control technology” for the air pollutants that you emit.

In this case, the Supreme Court held:

1) EPA may not require new sources to get a PSD permit simply because they will emit large amounts of greenhouse gases. The Court held that it would be unreasonable for greenhouse gases to trigger the permit requirement, because the PSD permit program is only meant to apply to the thousands of industrial sources that emit conventional pollutants, not the millions of sources that emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases.

2) But if a source needs a PSD permit anyway, because it emits other pollutants, then EPA may require it to adopt the “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases, along with other air pollutants.

I will not say anything more about the complexities of the decision, because I described them extensively in a previous post, which read the tea-leaves of oral argument in the case, and suggested the Supreme Court would reach exactly this compromise. So you can read that post both for a description of the statutory interpretation question and an explanation of the reasoning that the court eventually followed.

The most pressing question raised by the case today may be its implications for the United States’ future climate agenda, including EPA’s recently proposed rule for existing power plants. There are three important implications, and each could spell trouble for EPA’s climate agenda.

First, the Court suggested that one reason for rejecting EPA’s rule is that “it would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization” because millions of sources would be subject to a greenhouse gas permit requirement. EPA, it is true, had suggested it would only regulate a reasonable number of them, but the court was not willing to leave that decision in the agency’s hands.  The court noted: “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy, we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism.”

This passage will trouble EPA. In the agency’s recent proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions from state power sectors, which the agency calls the “Clean Power Plan,” the agency is using a long-ignored statutory provision, Clean Air Act §111(d), to overhaul the nation’s electricity sector. As noted in a previous post, §111(d) has rarely been used, and it is so obscure that when Congress passed the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, no one even noticed that the House and Senate had passed two different versions. Talk about unheralded.

Second, the Court expressed some skepticism about controlling greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, which is an important part of EPA’s climate agenda. Carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas, is the inevitable result of burning fossil fuels. Clean combustion of clean fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and water. And once carbon dioxide is emitted, it is hard to pull out of the air. So most attempts to limit carbon dioxide emissions are really attempts to limit fossil fuel combustion. The only other option is carbon capture and storage, which is usually too costly to be feasible. EPA’s Clean Power Plan and its guidance on what is the “best available control technology” under the PSD program both rely on encouraging energy efficiency.

But the Supreme Court was not willing to endorse this approach. First, it stated that it didn’t need to decide whether energy efficiency could be the “best available control technology” because EPA also said states could consider carbon capture and storage. Second, it said that even if EPA could mandate energy efficiency at new sources, it could not redesign the source, require it to consume less electricity, or otherwise micromanage industrial source proposals. In doing so, the Supreme Court handed industry arguments to use against regulators in permit proceedings.

A third important takeaway from the case is that Justice Scalia, the conservative justice that authored the Supreme Court’s opinion, was able to convince Justice Kennedy to join his opinion limiting EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Justice Kennedy is generally considered the Court’s swing vote and he was a deciding vote on the Court’s 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which required EPA to consider the climate consequences of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

Justice Kennedy has seemed very supportive of EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. At oral argument, he admonished industry’s lawyers that he would continue to follow “both the result and the reasoning” of Massachusetts v. EPA—and the reasoning of Massachusetts v. EPA stressed the possible benefits of greenhouse gas regulation. Until now, EPA may have been justified in believing that the Court’s swing justice would sympathize with the challenges they face in adapting the Clean Air Act to address global warming and give them the benefit of the doubt. But today’s decision shows that Justice Kennedy’s sympathy only goes so far: he is quite willing to strike down overly broad climate regulations. That may have much longer-term implications for EPA’s climate agenda—only the coming years will tell.

 

 

Full disclosure: Before entering my academic career in 2011, I represented some of the petitioners in their challenge to EPA’s regulations.