The Americas – Page 13 – Global Power Law & Policy

Robert J. Grey Joins K&L Gates

Mar 30 2016

K&L Gates is pleased to announce that Robert J. Grey has joined the firm as partner in the Washington, D.C. office.

Bob Grey has 40 years of energy and utility law experience, advising on regulatory, compliance, and corporate governance matters, as well as on various business acquisitions and mergers and spinoff initiatives. A member of our Energy practice and the Global Boardroom Risk Solutions initiative, Bob will focus on issues involving senior corporate leaders and board members. He joins the firm from PPL Corporation, where he served as executive vice president, general counsel, and chief legal officer. Previously, he was a partner at K&L Gates legacy firm Preston Gates & Ellis LLP.

Read the press release here.

Critical Habitat and the Endangered Species Act: Newly Enacted Regulations Threaten to Expand the Government’s Role and Discretion in the Permitting Process

Mar 02 2016

In the summer of 2014, we reported on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (collectively, the “Services”) proposed changes to regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). As we indicated then, the proposals had the potential to expand the need to consult with the Services under the ESA, thereby making it possibly more difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to obtain permits from federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Among the proposed changes was an amendment to the definition of “destruction or adverse modification” of critical habit.

Not quite two years later, on February 11, 2016, the Services issued a final rule adopting a new definition of “destruction or adverse modification” under the ESA. The new rule takes effect on March 14, 2016. According to the Services, it should not alter the ESA consultation process and does not require the reevaluation of “previously completed biological opinions.” As we foreshadowed in summer 2014, however, the new rule could impact the amount and substantive results of future consultations with the Services.

Read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB

High Court Grants Stay of Clean Power Plan

Feb 10 2016

On February 9, 2016, in an historic and unprecedented decision, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) from implementing the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) while the rule is challenged in lower courts. The decision is a victory for twenty-nine states and state agencies, along with several industry and trade groups (the “Petitioners”), who appealed the D.C. Circuit’s January 21, 2016 decision not to stay the CPP.

The Petitioners argued to the Supreme Court that the EPA does not have the Clean Air Act authority to implement the CPP, which they assert would reorganize the entire electric power sector of the U.S. economy. The petitioners persuaded the U.S. Supreme court that there was a reasonable probability that four justices would agree to hear the case, that there was a fair prospect that the majority of the court would find that the CPP was unlawful, and that irreparable harm would have resulted from the denial of the stay.

FERC Issues Staff White Paper on Guidance Principles for Clean Power Plan Modeling; Suggests Stakeholder Engagement to Consider Reliability Issues

Feb 02 2016

On January 19, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) issued a Staff White Paper[1] outlining four guiding principles to assist transmission planning entities – including regional transmission organizations (“RTOs”), independent system operators (“ISOs”) and electric utilities – in analyzing the Clean Power Plan (“CPP”) promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).[2] The CPP requires each state to demonstrate that it has considered electric system reliability issues in developing its state emissions reduction plan. The EPA explained that one particularly effective way for states to make such a demonstration is by consulting with the relevant RTO, ISO, or other transmission planning entities and documenting this consultation process in their state plans.

“FWS Bat Intake Rule Won’t Drive Project Developers Batty” on Law360

Jan 26 2016

Ankur Tohan and James M. Lynch’s recent alert on the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule and its effects on energy infrastructure projects was recently published on Law360.

Please click here to view it on Law360 (subscription required) or view it on K&L Gates HUB.

Winds of Change for Alternative Energy Tax Incentives in 2016

Jan 21 2016

Congress has some unfinished business on alternative energy policy, which may provide unusual legislative opportunities in an election year. While tax credits for wind and solar power received long-term extensions in the year-end omnibus legislation enacted at the end of 2015, other types of alternative energy were left out — reports have suggested unintentionally — spurring some in Congress to seek a remedy in 2016. Additionally, the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) initiated a rulemaking process to further define and clarify the types of property qualifying for the investment tax credit (ITC) under section 48 of the Tax Code. These developments, along with ongoing congressional interest in comprehensive energy policy legislation, could make 2016 a pivotal year for stakeholders in the alternative energy industry.

Read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB

The Final Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule: Impacts to Energy Infrastructure Projects

Jan 19 2016

Last spring, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) published a final rule to list the northern long-eared bat (the “Bat”) as a threatened species and an interim 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act (the “Act” or “ESA”) (16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.).

The interim 4(d) rule reflected an attempt by the Service to accommodate both conservation needs and industry group interests; however, it was widely believed that the listing of the Bat as a threatened species would impose a significant burden on wind, energy, and other energy infrastructure projects carried out within range of the Bat, as defined by the Service.

Read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB

Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head: What the CFTC’s Preliminary Report on the Swap Dealer Definition Might Mean for Energy Companies

Jan 15 2016

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC,” or the “Commission”) has begun a process to assess the de minimis exception to the Commodity Exchange Act’s swap dealer definition in connection with the end of the definition’s phase-in period in December 2017. At that time the swap dealer de minimis threshold will automatically fall from $8 billion to $3 billion, unless the Commission specifies a different de minimis threshold.

K&L Gates and CleanTech Alliance to host Washington Department of Commerce’s Clean Energy Fund 2 Virtual Bidder’s Conference on January 12, 2016

Jan 11 2016

The Washington State Department of Commerce is holding its Virtual Bidder’s Conference on January 12, 2016 at the Seattle office of K&L Gates to provide information to applicants about applying for Clean Energy Fund 2 grants. As mentioned in an earlier blog post, the Clean Energy Fund provides grants to projects that support the development, demonstration and deployment of clean energy technologies. The CleanTech Alliance has been hosting a series of public meetings across Washington State to provide a platform for the Washington Department of Commerce to provide information to and answer questions from applicants.

FAST Act Expedites Permitting and Environmental Review for Large Infrastructure Projects

Jan 08 2016

Expedited permitting and environmental review for complex infrastructure projects may soon be a reality. Buried at the end of its most recent transportation reauthorization package (the “FAST Act” or “Act”) is a significant new initiative intended to fundamentally change the way that federal agencies evaluate environmental impacts from, and issue permits for, construction of large infrastructure projects. [1]

National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) review and environmental permitting for complex infrastructure projects can be costly and protracted. For instance, a U.S. Government Accountability Office Report stated that the average completion time for an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) in 2012 was 4.6 years. [2] Between 2003 and 2012, the Department of Energy paid contractors an average fee of $6.6 million, and as much as $85 million, to prepare EISs. [3] The cost to prepare an EIS is often borne by project sponsors. Some transportation and water resources projects currently benefit from expedited permitting and environmental review procedures, [4] but the FAST Act is the first time that Congress has attempted to coordinate NEPA review across federal agencies and industry sectors.

Read the full alert on K&L Gates HUB

Catagory:The Americas