Legal & Regulatory

A federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ production of chemicals and electricity had “added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina.” The judge’s reasoning reveals the inherent limitations of courts unilaterally initiating policies to address climate change issues.

Timing is everything in the world of electric power generation. The timing of the delivery of electricity is affected by both the users’ demand and the speed with which a variety of energy sources supply power to the transmission system. Modern grids require reliable energy sources to instantly meet the needs of their users.

There is no doubt that the year-plus since passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) has borne witness to a great deal of activity among the diverse groups of smart grid stakeholders.

Early last year, there were promising signs that electric transmission line construction would be facilitated by the convergence of the new administration’s emphasis on developing remote renewable generation resources, proposed legislative provisions expanding federal siting authority, and the granting by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of generous cost-of-service returns on such investments. However, the stars did not align for transmission policy in 2009 as had been hoped, and the forecast is cloudy.

"Diversify, diversify, diversify." That has long been the mantra of many Wall Street pundits when advising investors on how to weather the risks of the stock market. Now advocates of electric vehicles (EVs) are using this same logic to champion plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).

"It’s anti-renewables" is becoming a familiar refrain voiced before public utility commissions, air quality management districts, and other public agencies with jurisdiction over the siting and operation of new fossil-fueled electric generation projects. The survival — and, in some cases, expansion — of legislatively mandated renewable energy requirements, tax incentives, and outright subsidies through the recent economic downturn has further encouraged opponents of new fossil-fueled generation to cloak themselves in the environmental flag, irrespective of their underlying motives and goals.

Last fall, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a rule creating a mandatory national system for reporting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The agency requires regulated entities to begin monitoring GHG emissions January 1, 2010, and to submit their first annual emissions reports March 31, 2011. This is a key step toward federal regulation of GHG emissions (a step that may have major implications regarding "major sources" and permitting requirements for new sources). It’s also an opportunity for power producers to implement their inventory management plans.

On October 16, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit filed by residents along the Mississippi Gulf coast against several corporations in the energy, fossil fuels, and chemicals industries alleging that the defendants were responsible for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrina — Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, et al., No. 07-60756 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2009).

In September, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling in Connecticut v. American Electric Power ("Decision"), a lawsuit initiated by eight states, New York City, and environmental organizations against six power-generating utilities. The plaintiffs allege that carbon dioxide emissions from the defendants’ fossil fuel – fired power plants in 20 states are contributing to a public nuisance — climate change and global warming.

For several years there has been widespread doubt about Washington’s ability to move forward with a national program to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At various times during the Bush administration, it appeared that legislation might be possible, but it always collapsed under the weight of partisan politics and competing special […]