greenhouse gas

Congressional Research Services issues CRS Report to Congress on "Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline: Legal Issues"

CongressionalResearchService
CongressionalResearchService

On January 23, 2012, the Congressional Research Services issued a Report to Congress on "Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline: Legal Issues."   The entire report (PDF, 29 pp.) can be found here.  The report analyzes a variety of legal issues, including: the sources of Presidential and State Department legal authority regarding cross-border facilities, reconciling the Executive and Legislative roles related to foreign commerce and judicial interpretations of those roles,  constitutional concerns related to potential action by States related to the pipeline, preemption issues, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  process for permitting of the pipeline, and the availability of judicial review of actions taken under Executive Order 13337.  The Report to Congress provides a typically thorough review of the issues and is required reading for persons interested in the legal issues arising from the Keystone XL proposal.   The Summary of the Report states, in part: "New legislative activity with respect to the permitting of border-crossing facilities, a subject previously handled exclusively by the executive branch, has triggered inquiries as to whether this raises constitutional issues related to the jurisdiction of the two branches over such facilities. Additionally, as states have begun to contemplate taking action with respect to the pipeline siting, some have questioned whether state siting of a pipeline is preempted by federal law. Others argue that states dictating the route of the pipeline violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution which, among other things, prohibits one state from acting to protect its own interests to the detriment of other states. This report reviews those legal issues. First, it suggests that legislation related to cross-border facility permitting is unlikely to raise significant constitutional questions, despite the fact that such permits have traditionally been handled by the executive branch alone pursuant to its constitutional “foreign affairs” authority. Next, it observes generally that state oversight of pipeline siting decisions does not appear to violate existing federal law or the Constitution. Finally, the report suggests that State Department’s implementation of the existing authority to issue presidential permits appears to allow for judicial review of its National Environmental Policy Act determinations."

A companion report from CRS focusing on policy issues associated with the proposal, "Keystone XL Pipeline Project: Key Issues" (CRS Report R41668), is also available here.

National Research Council Issues New Report: "America's Climate Choices"

The National Research Council released today a new report, "America's Climate Choices", the final volume of the "America's Climate Choices" suite of activities. The report examines the nation’s options for responding to the risks posed by climate change. The report concludes that it is imprudent to further delay actions to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions, and offers a series of recommendations for national policy.  The primary recommendation is for the nation to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the "most effective strategy" to "begin ramping down emissions as soon as possible". The NAS recommendations also include mobilization for adaptation to climate change, including adaptation planning and implementation "at all levels of society".  

A PDF of the entire report can be downloaded for personal use.  It will make sobering reading.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Coal & Gas Industries Attack EPA's Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding

In a predictable legal free-for-all, industry groups joined the state of Texas and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce late last week in filing challenges to EPA's "endangerment" finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean AIr Act, while sixteen states and several environmental groups joined the fray by seeking to intervene in the industry challenges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear the cases.  All of the various petitions for review will almost certainly be consolidated. Background:  On December 7, 2009, the EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

  • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
  • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities  See EPA's background materials supporting its greenhouse gas endangerment findings under section 202 of the Clean Air Act.

The industry challengers include Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association. Ten other petitions were filed by the American Iron and Steel Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, the Southeastern Legal Foundation on behalf of 13 House Republicans and business associations, and the so-called "Coalition for Responsible Regulation".

The state and environmental groups seeking to intervene to support EPA's endangerment finding include a coalition of 16 states and New York City, and groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.

In a statement reported by the New York Times, Environmental Defense Fund Texas regional director Jim Marston said: "The lawsuit filed by Governor Perry is asking the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. vs. Massachusetts. Their action invokes memories of a sad time in Texas history from the '50s, when Texas politicians sought to nullify decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only is it legally unsound, it puts Texas on the side of the 1950s economy, against the clean energy economy of the future."