Regulatory: The Emerging Battle Over Regulation of Greenhouse Gases
The battle over greenhouse gas emissions is being waged in all three branches of government.
September 14, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
For industrial companies, the most important regulatory issue is the conflict over the control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The battle will be waged in all three branches of government, and the outcome will have major impacts on corporate costs and investment decisions.
Legislative Branch: Senate Democrats have abandoned efforts to establish a comprehensive statutory scheme to limit GHG emissions. Proponents are trying to identify scaled-down, sector-specific approaches to GHGs that might be able to pass before Congress adjourns.
Executive Branch: The Administration has refused to accept the legislative stalemate and will drive the policy process forward. It will exercise existing regulatory authority to impose GHG limits on the most important sources of emissions and force opponents of its policies to overturn them in court.
Starting January 2nd, EPA will regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act and will ultimately require every major industrial polluter to obtain a permit limiting its emissions. EPA has established an incremental, phase-in process that will apply immediately to the largest sources (electric generating plants) and will later be expanded in steps to include other facilities.
In May, the Administration adopted a rule that regulates GHG emissions and increases the minimum mileage requirement for cars and light-duty trucks. In August, the White House began deliberations on emission limits and enhanced fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. In late September, the Administration is scheduled to announce a new regulatory process to tighten regulations on cars and light trucks through 2025.
Judicial Branch: The Administration's major GHG initiatives have been challenged in court. These include EPA's finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger the public health and welfare and its adoption of a phased-in process for GHG permitting, rather than a requirement that applies immediately to all GHG emitters, large and small alike.
In turn, the Administration has sought to minimize judicial involvement and reserve to the political branches the authority to make the critical policy decisions concerning GHG regulation. In August, the Department of Justice intervened in a case in which electricity generators sought Supreme Court review of a decision which held that eight States had standing to seek to force utilities to limit GHG emissions under the federal common law of nuisance. Justice argued that the Court should vacate the lower court decision, on the ground that the States lack “prudential standing” to ask that a court make the multiple policy judgments that would be necessary to regulate GHG emissions appropriately. It argued that these decisions should be made by politically accountable officials with expertise and who can pursue a coherent national strategy.
The simultaneous battles in all three Branches will generate substantial uncertainty concerning the basic ground rules surrounding GHG regulation. This will deprive many companies of the certainty they need to plan rationally their future operations and investments.
John F. Cooney is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Venable.
Read John Cooney's previous column. Read John Cooney's next column.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhy Seemingly Simple Off-Channel Communication Rules Still Vex Finance Industry
5 minute readSEC Enforcement Chief Grewal—Whose Hard Line on Crypto Tormented the Industry—Stepping Down
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250