Two Polar Bear Decisions in Two Weeks: Their significance for Climate Change, Endangered Species and Project Development

The National Law Review recently published an article by Lowell M. Rothschild with Bracewell & Giuliani LLP titled, Two Polar Bear Decisions in Two Weeks: Their significance for Climate Change, Endangered Species and Project Development:

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

 

The end of February saw a flurry of news regarding the status of the Polar Bear under the Endangered Species Act.  On February 20, the US Fish and Wildlife Service reissued its so-called “4(d)” rule regarding the Bear, outlining the rules “necessary and advisable” to protect it.  Nine days later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld FWS’s listing of the Polar Bear as a “threatened” species under the ESA.   Each development is significant in its own right; together, they offer solid guidance as to where FWS is heading on using the ESA to address climate change and how climate change is affecting the listing of potentially endangered species.

Endangered v. Threatened

The latter question was at the heart of the litigation decided by the DC Circuit.  There, the court faced the question of whether FWS correctly identified the Polar Bear as “Threatened”, rather than “Endangered”.  Under the ESA, the difference between the two is essentially whether the species is currently in danger of extinction (Endangered) or whether it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (Threatened).

The Polar Bear’s Listing

The Polar Bear is heavily dependent on sea ice, and climate change is decreasing the amount of arctic sea ice.  FWS’s decision that the Bear was Threatened, rather than Endangered, was based, essentially, on the Service’s view of how quickly climate change was causing arctic sea ice to melt.  If it is happening “quickly,” FWS would list the Bear as Endangered.  If it is happening very slowly, FWS wouldn’t list the Bear at all.  FWS took the middle path, deciding that climate change is happening fast enough that those species face the threat of extinction in the foreseeable future.  Given the limitations of climate science, FWS chose 45 years as the “foreseeable” future and the Court upheld FWS’s use of this timeframe.

What the Listing Shows about FWS’s View of Climate Change’s Impact on Species

The Court upheld FWS’s listing decision, doing so in the face of challenges on both sides of the decision –  some argued that the Bear shouldn’t be listed at all and others argued that it faces an imminent risk of extinction and should be considered Endangered, not just Threatened.   The takeaways from FWS’s listing decision and the court’s refusal to strike it down are that, at least for the ESA:

  • climate change is occurring
  • it will have significant adverse impacts to species in the foreseeable future
  • those impacts are still reversible

The 4(d) Decision

So, since FWS has determined that climate change is adversely affecting species, will it use the ESA to regulate climate change?  That question was at the heart of the other major development: FWS’s issuance of the “4(d)” rule for the Polar Bear.  At a very high level, a 4(d) rule outlines the steps FWS believes are necessary and advisable to protect a Threatened species.  These steps can include either restrictions on public action, such as limitations on development in the species’ habitat, or the allowance of otherwise prohibited activity, such as permitting certain specified, limited adverse impacts to the species.

What the Polar bear 4(d) Decision Means for Using the ESA to Regulate Climate Change

For the Polar Bear’s 4(d) rule, the main public policy question was how to address activities outside of the Bear’s range that increased the potential for climate change.  Since we know the Polar Bear needs sea ice to survive and that climate change is reducing arctic sea ice, would FWS’s 4(d) rule attempt to protect the Bear from further reductions in sea ice by addressing activities that affect the climate change? Boiled down to its core, would the 4(d) rule require greenhouse gas-emitting projects far from the Polar Bear’s range to obtain an ESA permit for those emissions?  FWS’s rule says no.

The Takeaways

The rule is consistent with FWS’s prior 4(d) rule for the Polar Bear, issued in 2008 and struck down by US District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011.  The rule is also consistent with Bush Administration guidance addressing how FWS should examine the ESA impacts of GHG emissions.  It is therefore a reliable and useful marker as to FWS’s view of the ESA.  The new 4(d) rule is more likely to be upheld than the prior one – the prior one was struck down for largely procedural reasons and for a few inadequate findings which FWS appears to have since corrected.

The takeaway here is that FWS has taken a consistent position over time on the use of the Act to regulate GHGs. The Service has used and will continue to use the Act to protect species affected by climate change, but only from actions taken against them directly or in their range – it will not use the ESA to regulate GHGs on a national or global level.

© 2013 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference – March 18-19, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Perrin Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference:

Asbestos March 18 2013

Monday, March 18th – Tuesday, March 19th, 2013
Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel
Beverly Hills, CA

Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference – March 18-19, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Perrin Cutting Edge Issues in Asbestos Litigation Conference:

Asbestos March 18 2013

Monday, March 18th – Tuesday, March 19th, 2013
Beverly Wilshire, A Four Seasons Hotel
Beverly Hills, CA

 

3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management Conference – March 12-14, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management Conference:

Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Mgmt March 12-14 2013

March 12-14, 2013

Houston, Texas

Key Features
  • Pre-Conference Workshop A: Tactics to sustain the relationship between operator and service provider when drafting global contracts
  • Pre-Conference Workshop B: Drafting robust service level agreements in a post Macondo world with WeatherFord International
Event Focus

3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management

As organizations go back to the Gulf for exploration, the allocation of liability in E&P projects have become vaster. The laws around the world have been unpredictably changing, leading the oil and gas industry question the quality of their contracts. The changes within the industry have all parties in a contract concerned about liability, risk and overall validity of their contracts. With contracts being the nexus of any successful job, it is important to review and analyze the changes within the industry.

The marcus evans 3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management Conference will go through the entire lifecycle of a contract. We will determine the after effects of post Macondo, demystify the changes in indemnity and warranty clauses and develop tactics to diminish risk in these contracts. By analyzing both domestic and international contracts, we will bring the most current and pressing issues to the forefront of this conference to help troubleshoot the core issues of contract.

Attending this Premier marcus evans Conference will enable you to:

  • Identify the changes in risk allocation since the Gulf reopened for exploration with Eni US Operating Company
  • Investigate insurance protection to ensure a more balanced and reasonable contract with Seneca Resources
  • Implement Preferential Rights to Purchase clauses in contracts and avoid pitfalls when drafting these clauses with Apache Corporation
  • Analyze issues in drilling contracts to mitigate risks with Occidental Oil and Gas Corporationand Superior Energy Services, Inc.
  • Review the positive and negative implications to contracts when an organization undergoes mergers and acquisitions with GE Oil & Gas.

Industry leaders attending this conference will benefit from a dynamic presentation format consisting of workshops, panel discussions, and industry-specific case studies that provide accurate, real-world knowledge. Attendees will experience highly interactive conference sessions, 10-15 minutes of Q&A time after each presentation, 4+ hours of networking, and exclusive online access to materials post-event.

Biotech’s Public Relations Problems Continue

The National Law Review recently featured an article, Biotech’s Public Relations Problems Continue, written by Warren Woessner with Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.:

Schwegman Lundberg Woessner

 

Maybe “fish gotta swim” but the FDA has extended the approval period for transgenic Salmon genetically engineered to reach market weight sooner. No evidence at all has been presented that filets from these fish would present a danger human consumers – and may well provide a benefit to an increasingly hungry world.

This report once again reminded me how far scientific advances in biotech have exceeded the industry’s attempts to explain their benefits to the consuming public. As biotech companies wisely sold the advantages of herbicide resistant corn, cotton and soybeans to farmers well prior to their “launch”. Farmers were tired of using herbicides that could kill their human handlers. By the time the Supreme Court decided that plants were patentable (in 2002), about 65% of U.S. corn was transgenic (and patented as well). However, the EU countries don’t grow much corn, and the lack of lobbying there contributed to the general ban on imports of genetically engineered crops and sandwich shops that advertise that their snacks have no GMO’s.

Now the Supreme Court will be answering the not-so-simple question “Are human genes patentable?” Will it be long before a stem cell suit comes before the Justices? When it does, I hope that they don’t recall last week’s episode of the TV series “Nikita” (loosely based on the “Femme Nikita” films). Nikita learns that an Eastern Europe dictator who lost a leg in an assassination attempt has been able to replace it with the help of a secret group of scientists who can grow new limbs using “pluripotent stem cells.” Nikita is about to kidnap their sales rep when he comes to visit the dictator, to get the scientists to replace the missing hand of her fiancé – the bionic one is not working well. At the last minute, she sees that the rep’s plane is full of children from orphanages that the scientists plan to use as experimental subjects. In the ensuing confusion, she shoots the rep, thus ruining her chance to find the lab.

Could you design a more effective story to illustrate the evils of biotechnology in general and stem cell research in particular? Right now, most U.S. stem cell research is funded only due to executive order. BIO and other organizations will have to fight harder than ever to win the war against science that is advancing on multiple fronts.

© 2013 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management Conference – March 12-14, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management Conference:

Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Mgmt March 12-14 2013

 

 

March 12-14, 2013

Houston, Texas

 

Key Features
 

  • Pre-Conference Workshop A: Tactics to sustain the relationship between operator and service provider when drafting global contracts
  • Pre-Conference Workshop B: Drafting robust service level agreements in a post Macondo world with WeatherFord International

 

Event Focus

3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management

As organizations go back to the Gulf for exploration, the allocation of liability in E&P projects have become vaster. The laws around the world have been unpredictably changing, leading the oil and gas industry question the quality of their contracts. The changes within the industry have all parties in a contract concerned about liability, risk and overall validity of their contracts. With contracts being the nexus of any successful job, it is important to review and analyze the changes within the industry.

The marcus evans 3rd Annual Upstream Oil and Gas Contract Management Conference will go through the entire lifecycle of a contract. We will determine the after effects of post Macondo, demystify the changes in indemnity and warranty clauses and develop tactics to diminish risk in these contracts. By analyzing both domestic and international contracts, we will bring the most current and pressing issues to the forefront of this conference to help troubleshoot the core issues of contract.

Attending this Premier marcus evans Conference will enable you to:

  • Identify the changes in risk allocation since the Gulf reopened for exploration with Eni US Operating Company
  • Investigate insurance protection to ensure a more balanced and reasonable contract with Seneca Resources
  • Implement Preferential Rights to Purchase clauses in contracts and avoid pitfalls when drafting these clauses with Apache Corporation
  • Analyze issues in drilling contracts to mitigate risks with Occidental Oil and Gas Corporationand Superior Energy Services, Inc.
  • Review the positive and negative implications to contracts when an organization undergoes mergers and acquisitions with GE Oil & Gas.

Industry leaders attending this conference will benefit from a dynamic presentation format consisting of workshops, panel discussions, and industry-specific case studies that provide accurate, real-world knowledge. Attendees will experience highly interactive conference sessions, 10-15 minutes of Q&A time after each presentation, 4+ hours of networking, and exclusive online access to materials post-event.

Fiscal Cliff Legislation Extends Production and Investment Tax Credits

The National Law Review recently published an article, Fiscal Cliff Legislation Extends Production and Investment Tax Credits, written by Alexander W. Jones of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP:

Bracewell & Giuliani Logo

 

The fiscal cliff legislation temporarily ends the uncertainty surrounding the extension of tax credits related to wind facilities that generate electricity. Under current law, the production tax credit (the “PTC”) applied to wind facilities that were operational by the end of 2012. The legislation amends the Code and provides that such PTC is available for wind facilities “the construction of which begins before January 1, 2014.” A wind facility typically cannot be planned and constructed within a calendar year, thus, the amended language could significantly increase the amount of facilities that are eligible to qualify for the PTC and cause an even greater demand in 2013 for wind turbines and other equipment necessary to generate electricity.

In addition, the fiscal cliff legislation extends the provision that allows developers and investors involved with wind facilities to elect to receive the investment tax credit (the “ITC”) in lieu of the PTC. The existing ITC provides for an immediate 30% tax credit in the year the facility is placed into service instead of the 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour PTC that is available for the 10 year period commencing when the wind facility is operational. The ability to elect to receive the ITC instead of the PTC will apply to most wind facilities that commence construction prior to January 1, 2014. The extension of such election should cause an increased amount of wind facility transactions to be partially financed by tax equity investors that prefer to take into account the ITC when the facility is completed.

The extension of the PTC and the amendment expanding the scope of wind facilities that are eligible to qualify for the PTC will be welcome by wind developers and investors and may result in increased investment in wind electricity in 2013. However, because the extension applies only for one year, there remains little certainty that the PTC will continue to be available for wind facilities the construction of which begins after 2013.

© 2012 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

The Fiscal Cliff Deal’s Impact on Clean Energy

MintzLogo2010_Black

Contains key tax provisions for renewable energy but funding for USDA energy programs is left out

Capping weeks of intense negotiations between the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders to avert the fiscal cliff, the House of Representatives late on the night of Jan. 1 passed HR 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, on vote of 257-167. The Act was passed by the Senate, 89-8, in a similar late night vote on Dec. 31, so it now goes to President Obama for his signature.

The Act is not a “grand bargain” or a comprehensive solution: sequestration—the automatic spending cuts Congress imposed on itself–has been postponed for only two months to give time for further negotiations. The Act allows federal tax rates to rise on those making over $400,000 ($450,000 for married couples) but also limits the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax on 4 million taxpayers. The Act also includes a one-year extension of emergency unemployment benefits and a one-year extension of provisions to prevent doctors’ payments from Medicare from being cut.

The Act is a mixed bag for the clean energy industry but contains some significant wins on tax policy. The Act extends $46 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses—the so called tax extenders.Many of these tax extenders target the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. For example, a tweak to the Section 45 production tax credit will allow projects that begin construction before Jan. 1, 2014 to take advantage of the credit. However, the Act is a disappointment for those depending on USDA Energy Title Programs as no mandatory funding was contained in the ninemonth reauthorization of Farm Bill programs included as part of the package.

Below is a summary of key clean energy provisions in the American Taxpayer Relief Act.

Tax extenders

  • Extension and modification of incentives for Sec. 45 renewable electricity property production tax credit.  Under current law, taxpayers can claim either a 1.1 or 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit for electricity produced for a 10-year period from eligible facilities placed-in-service by the end of 2012 (wind) or 2013 (closed-loop biomass, open-loop biomass, landfill gas, or municipal solid waste facilities). The provision modifies section 45 to allow eligible renewable energy facilities that begin construction before the end of 2013 to claim the 10-year credit.
  • Extension of investment tax credit in lieu of production tax credit. The Act would allow facilities qualifying for the section 45 production tax credit to elect to take a 30% investment tax credit in lieu of the production tax credit for facilities that begin construction by the end of 2013.
  • Extension of alternative fuel vehicle refueling property credit (non-hydrogen refueling property). The Act extends for two years, through 2013, the 30% investment tax credit for alternative vehicle refueling property.
  • Extension of incentives for alternative fuel and alternative fuel mixtures (other than liquefied hydrogen). The Act extends through 2013 the $0.50 per gallon alternative fuel tax credit and alternative fuel mixture tax credit. This credit can be claimed as a nonrefundable excise tax credit or a refundable income tax credit. Due to claims of abuse in the alternative mixture tax credit, taxpayers can no longer claim the refundable portion of the alternative fuel mixture tax credit.
  • 25C Credit for certain nonbusiness energy property.  The Section 25C credit for energyefficient improvements to existing homes is extended for two years, through 2013. This reinstates the credit as it existed before passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  • Plug-in electric motorcycles and highway vehicles.  The Act reforms and extends for two years, through 2013, the individual income tax credit for highway-capable plug-in motorcycles and 3-wheeled vehicles. It also makes golf carts and other low-speed vehicles ineligible for the credit.
  • Cellulosic biofuels producer tax credit. The Act extends the $1.01 per gallon production tax credit on cellulosic biofuel produced before the end of 2013. The definition of qualified cellulosic biofuel production is expanded to include algae-based fuel.
  • Biodiesel and renewable diesel credits.  The Act extends through 2013 the $1.00 per gallon tax credit for biodiesel, as well as the $.10 per gallon small agri-biodiesel producer credit.  The Act also renews through 2013 the $1.00 per gallon tax credit for diesel fuel created from biomass.
  • Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes.  The tax credit for the construction of energy-efficient new homes that achieve a 30% or 50% reduction in heating and cooling energy consumption is extended for two years, through 2013.
  • Energy efficient appliance credit.  The Act extends for two years, through 2013, a tax credit to US-based companies that manufacture energy-efficient clothes washers, dishwashers and refrigerators.
  • Cellulosic biofuels bonus depreciation.  The 2008 Farm Bill allowed cellulosic biofuel facilities placed-in-service before the end of 2012 to expense half of their eligible capital costs in the first year of operation. The Act extends this bonus depreciation for one additional year for facilities placed-in-service before the end of 2013 and allows algae-based fuel to qualify for bonus depreciation.
  • Special rule for sales of transmission property.  The Act extends the present law deferral of gain on sales of transmission property by vertically integrated electric utilities to FERC approved independent transmission companies. The Act allows gain on such sales prior to January 1, 2014 to be recognized ratably over an eight-year period.
  • Extension of New Markets Tax Credit.  The federal government leverages New Markets Tax Credits (NMTCs) to encourage significant private investment in businesses in low-income communities. The program provides a 39 percent tax credit spread over 7 years.  The Act extends NMTCs for two years, permitting a maximum annual amount of qualified equity investments of $3.5 billion each year.
  • Extension of bonus depreciation. Businesses are allowed to recover the cost of capital expenditures over time according to a depreciation schedule. Starting in 2008, Congress allowed businesses to take an additional depreciation deduction allowance in the first year.  The Act extends the 50 percent accelerated expensing provision for qualifying property purchased and placed in service before January 1, 2014 (before January 1, 2015 for certain longer-lived and transportation assets).

Bioenergy funding

The Act also extends the 2008 Farm Act for nine-months (until the end of fiscal year 2013). A short term extension was necessary after the House refused to vote on a five-year reauthorization. The Act reauthorizes funding for US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Energy Title programs but does not provide mandatory funding. Despite hopeful signals that mandatory funding was included in an agreement between the Agriculture Committees’ leadership, it was not included in the final deal between Senate Minority Leader McConnell and the Obama Administration.

By comparison, the Senate Farm Bill passed last year contained approximately $800 billion over 10 years for USDA energy programs. It also would have expanded eligibility under certain programs to renewable chemicals. These USDA programs provide grants, loans, and loan guarantees to renewable energy and advanced biofuel projects; promote cultivation of cellulosic feedstocks; and provide research funding. Work on a new five-year Farm Act will now have to start again, though much of the groundwork has already been done by the committees.

©1994-2012 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

EPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution

The National Law Review recently published an article by the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEPA Enforcement in 2012 Protects Communities From Harmful Pollution:

EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released its annual enforcement results, showing significant environmental and public health protections achieved – a reduction of 2.2 billion pounds of air, water and land pollution, as well as 4.4 billion pounds of hazardous waste, and $252 million in civil and criminal penalties levied – while also focusing on enforcement efforts that reduce smaller amounts of pollution but have substantial health impacts in communities.

“Enforcement plays a vital role in protecting communities from harmful pollution,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We are using vigorous enforcement, as well as innovations in monitoring and transparency, to reduce pollution violations, protect and empower communities and focus on the environmental problems that matter most.”

FY 2012 results include:

  • Sustained and focused enforcement attention on serious violators of clean drinking water standards has resulted in improvements in compliance. The number of systems with serious violations has declined by more than 60 percent in the past three years as a result of combined federal and state enforcement work, protecting people’s health through safer drinking water.
  • More than 67 percent of large combined sewer systems serving people across the country are implementing clean water solutions to reduce raw sewage and contaminated stormwater and more are underway. EPA is working with communities to design integrated solutions to these water quality problems, and incorporating innovative and cost effective green infrastructure to save money and achieve multiple community benefits.
  • EPA is bringing criminal prosecutions where criminal activity threatens public health, like failing to use required pollution control equipment or knowingly violating pollution rules resulting in death or serious harm or falsifying pollution information. See a case example in Louisiana.
  • EPA is advancing environmental justice by incorporating fenceline monitoring, which requires companies to monitor their air emissions and make that data available public, into settlements, ensuring that local residents have access to critical information about pollution that may be affecting their community. EPA also secured $44 million in additional investments through settlements for supplemental environmental projects that benefit impacted communities. See an oil refinery case example.
  • EPA is increasing transparency to use the power of public accountability to help improve environmental compliance. EPA’s 2012 enforcement actions map provides information about violators in communities. EPA’sstate dashboards and Clean Water Act pollutant loading tool provides the public with information about local pollution that may affect them and allows the public to take a closer look at how government is responding to pollution problems.

More information about EPA’s FY 2012 enforcement results:
http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/data/eoy2012/index.html

© Copyright 2012 United States Environmental Protection Agency

Industry Groups File Suit to Block Conflict Minerals Rules and Resource Extraction Rules

The National Law Review recently featured an article by the Public Companies Group of Schiff Hardin LLP titled, Industry Groups File Suit to Block Conflict Minerals Rules and Resource Extraction Rules:

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

 

Late last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers filed suit in federal court requesting that the court either modify or set aside the SEC rules governing so-called conflict minerals.  The petition, filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, does not state a specific basis for the legal challenge, but in a joint statement, the groups stated that though well-intentioned, the rules are “not an effective approach to this complex issue” and characterized the rule as imposing “an unworkable, overly broad and burdensome system that will undermine jobs and growth and may not achieve Congress’s overall objectives.”  This petition comes on the heels of the suit filed against the SEC early last month by a collection of industry groups asking a federal district court to block implementation of the resource extraction disclosure rules promulgated in late August.  The plaintiff trade groups raised a number of claims, including a faulty cost-benefit analysis and deficiencies under the Administrative Procedures Act and Exchange Act.  It is not clear at this time if the SEC will stay either of the controversial rules on a voluntary basis after negotiation with plaintiffs’ counsel. Should the SEC refuse to do so, the plaintiffs could petition the court for injunctive relief.

© 2012 Schiff Hardin LLP