Using the Law to Promote Renewable Energy, Environmental Business and Sustainability
ABOUT ME
This blog is maintained by Stephen Filler, a New York-based attorney with expertise in business law, contracts, intellectual property and litigation. He represents a wide variety of businesses, technology, media companies and individuals. He also provides legal and consulting services to sustainable, environmental and renewable energy businesses, non-profit organizations and trade organizations. He is on the board of the New York Solar Energy Industries Association and Secretary of the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater. His business website is www.nylawline.com. The Green Counsel consulting website is www.greencounsel.com.
Fred Krupp from Environmental Defense was interviewed on NPR on the TXU deal. As part of the deal, TXU's prospective purchasers agreed to reduce the number new coal plant applications from eleven to three, and to reduce their C02 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
When asked how purchasers would meet the increased energy demand that the new coal plants were supposed to meet, Krupp said that they would go a long way toward meeting this demand by doubling its investment in wind power and doubling its investment in energy efficiency. Krupp said this "is becoming a new model, where utilities are understanding that they can make money by helping customers save energy."
What kind of question is that? Isn't the public finally convinced that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming and coal is one of the biggest culprits? Unfortunately, the legal system has still not resolved this issue -- proving Dickens' point that the "law's an ass," and a particularly stubborn one at that.
One of our most venerable environmental statutes, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requires that the federal government assess and publicly disclose the environmental impact of its actions. If the impact might be significant, the government must investigate, respond to public comments and compare alternatives. Many states, and other countries, have similar laws.
U.S courts have been mixed on whether, and to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions must be considered in the assessment. (For some cases involving the question of whether NEPA applies to greenhouse gas emissions, see "Global Warming and the Courts" (PDF)(p. 11-14)). A court in Austrialia, however, recently ruled that the impact that large projects have on global warming -- such as the coal mine planned for Anvil Hill (viewed above) -- must be considered.
The decision involved the Anvil Hill open-cut coal mine -- the last significant area of bush land on the floor of the Hunter Valley north of Sydney, home many endangered species, including the koala and 14 varieties of birds. If approved, Anvil Hill will be another huge mine in Australia, already the world's largest coal exporter. (Like the U.S., Australia has failed to join Kyoto.)
A group of citizens challenged the mine, arguing that government had to consider both the direct consequences of the mining, as well as the "downstream" impacts -- particularly the burning of the coal, even though much of it would be burned overseas.
Although the judge refused to interfere with the approval process for the mine, she ruled that the downstream impacts must be considered. The decision may not stop the Anvil mine itself, but climate activists believe it will have significant consequence on future developments.
As Nikki Williams, Chief Executive of the New South Wales Minerals Council, stated, New South Wales has "300 thousand business owners and each one of those is going to be dramatically affected potentially, if this decision is taken to its logical conclusions because all of our activities, all of our business, produce greenhouse gases. So where do you draw the line? Is it just coal exports or are we going right down the chain to the building of your suburban home?"
We can only hope.
For more information, go to Anvil Hill Alliance, hear the Living On Earth podcast or watch the following video:
