T H E GEORGE WA SHI NGTON U N I V ER SIT Y L AW SCHOOL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW
Perspectives
PROGRAM ESTABLISHED 1970
PERSPECTIVES
California’s Climate & Energy Innovations: Lessons for Other States Caitlin McCoy, GW Environmental Law Fellow
FALL 2017 ISSUE PERSPECTIVES 1, 15–19 NEWS 1, 10–15, 20 PROFILES 2–6 EVENTS 6 FACULT Y PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 7–10
NEWS
C
alifornia has developed a reputation for its landmark environmental laws as well as its unique status under some federal schemes, such as the Clean Air Act. California regularly takes advantage of the often-quoted opportunity posed by Justice Brandeis: “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”1 For decades, California has engaged in such experiments, particularly with regard to environmental and energy laws. More recently, California has been making strides in its efforts to address
climate change and transition its electricity system to sustainable and increasingly renewable generation. In the first few months of his administration, President Trump mandated review of the Clean Power Plan, reversed the Obama administration’s moratorium on leasing federal lands for coal mining, and started withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has questioned the seriousness of climate change and the need for regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is becoming increasingly clear that the dramatic reductions in continued on page 15
Energy and Environmental Law Student Advocacy Competition Successes
T
aylor Morosco, 3L, and Madeleine Skaller, 2L, finished second in the Robert R. Merhige National Environmental Negotiation Competition at the University of Richmond. They were coached by Assistant Dean of Students Robin Juni, with key assistance from Environmental Law Fellow Caitlin McCoy, our resident expert on coal ash issues. The four rounds of negotiations were held on March 25 and 26. The GW Law students participating in the Seventh Annual National Energy and Sustainability continued on page 20
PROFILES
Profiles Faiza Kaukab, JD ’17
H
ailing from Geneva, Switzerland, Faiza Kaukab’s interest in environmental law is international in scope. After receiving a B.Sc. in economics and politics from Queen Mary, University of London, Ms. Kaukab obtained an internship at the United Nations Environment Programme’s Economics and Trade Branch Faiza Kaukab (UNEP-ETB), where her interest in environmental law and policy was piqued. She returned to UNEP-ETB as a consultant after receiving her first law degree, also from England. As an intern and consultant, Ms. Kaukab helped develop programs related to organic agriculture and biotrade, but her experience was not limited to this. “I got great exposure to other pressing work going on at the time, including
Karyan San Martano, JD ’18
A
fter living in Paris for 10 years, Karyan San Martano and her family came stateside. Following a trans-Atlantic trek, she and her family settled in the Sunshine State. Her time in Florida proved to be formative. “My family has always spent a lot of time outdoors, and when we moved to Florida, I started becoming aware of the issues affecting our very own backyard – the Karyan San Martano Everglades, the shores, the wildlife,” Ms. San Martano said.
preparing for COP 15 in Denmark and furthering the sustainable development agenda,” she said. Shortly after leaving the U.N., she crossed the Atlantic and started consulting for various nonprofit organizations as a grant writer and program manager. In this capacity, her work dealt with the relationship between trade and development. Through it all, her background in environmental law was useful. “The knowledge I gained about environmental issues and policy was always applicable in every job I did, be it promoting environmentally sustainable ways for artisans to produce and market their products or implementing climate neutral practices in the workplace,” she said. Ms. Kaukab then decided to return to law school. Indeed, she hoped to practice law in the United States. Aside from GW’s reputation and broad array of programs of interest, Ms. Kaukab chose GW because of its location in the nation’s capital. “I wanted to move to D.C. because it is a very livable city with a great quality of life, and it has an international flair because it’s the seat of international organizations and foreign embassies,” she said.
The school’s proximity to law firms, the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation, and various government offices was convenient. For Ms. Kaukab, it made juggling school, networking, and clerking at a nearby law firm practical. During her time at GW, she pursued coursework related to environmental, energy, antitrust, and trade law. But some of her most memorable student experiences took place beyond the classroom. “Taking part in the GW-Groningen Energy Law Program in my final year was one of my best law school experiences,” Ms. Kaukab said. “It partly involved spending a week in D.C. attending lectures and learning about pertinent energy law issues with colleagues from the University of Groningen and then doing the same during a week in Groningen, Netherlands. At the end of each week, it was amazing how much I had learned about energy policy both in the United States and Europe.” For current and prospective students, Ms. Kaukab recommends taking a variety of classes to expand your horizon. She joined Axinn, Veltrop, and Harkrider in September as an associate in the antitrust group. n
It was this appreciation for time outdoors and awareness of environmental issues at home that drew her to environmental law. “It wasn’t a specific event, conversation, or class that drew me to the field but rather, I was drawn to this field because it was a way for me to do my part in protecting our planet for the next generation,” Ms. San Martano said. “Lawyers can have a large impact in the field of environmental protection, from engaging in regulatory work and advising policymakers, to the impact litigation has on the potential for real systemic reform, as well as directly helping communities, especially low-income and minority communities that are disproportionately affected by environmental risks.” After receiving dual degrees in business administration and history from the
University of Florida and holding a short internship at a mid-size Florida firm, Ms. San Martano was ready to take the next step. She applied to and was accepted by GW Law and chose to enroll because of the unique opportunities Washington, D.C., offers to students interested in studying environmental law. From the start, she took advantage of what D.C. had to offer. In the summer between 1L and 2L, she was an intern with the Environmental Action Center. As an intern, Ms. San Martano’s work focused on Maryland permitting regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations after an uptick in large-scale poultry farms along Maryland’s Eastern shore raised pollution concerns. Then, in the fall of her 2L year, Ms. San Martano served as an intern at the
2 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
continued on page 3
PROFILES
Daniel Oginsky, JD ’99
D
aniel J. Oginsky is Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer for Novi, Michigan-based ITC Holdings Corporation, the nation’s largest independent electricity transmission company. He serves on the Energy Law Advisory Board at GW Law. Before attending GW Law, Mr. Oginsky studied political theory and constitutional democracy at Michigan State University’s James Madison College, graduating with a bachelor’s degree with honors in 1995. He was drawn to GW Law because of its strong program and its Washington, D.C., location. Studying at GW, he Daniel Oginsky furthered his passion for government and policy issues and knew he wanted to work in a regulated industry, specifically energy. “I was drawn to work on legal and policy issues relevant to shaping the energy industry, which is so dynamic in that it touches people every day; it powers our daily lives,” he said.
Karyan San Martano from page 2
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). There, her work primarily focused on government contracts, for which she drafted action referral memoranda that served as suspension or debarment recommendations. She was drawn to a position with the DOI because of its mission to conserve federal land. On campus, she served as a research assistant for Associate Dean of Environmental Studies LeRoy Paddock. In that role, she conducted research on energy supply planning. Her research led to co-authoring a chapter with Dean Paddock on “Energy Supply Planning
On his way to graduating with a Juris Doctor degree with honors in 1999, he worked as a summer associate and law clerk with Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, which counts energy companies among its clients. Upon graduation, Mr. Oginsky became an associate with the firm. “My studies at GW and experience practicing energy law really set me on my career path,” he said. After leaving Sutherland, Mr. Oginsky joined Dykema Gossett in Lansing, Michigan, in 2001, where he continued to practice energy law. During his time with the firm, he began representing a newly formed energy company, ITC Holdings Corp. Presented with an opportunity to jump in with both feet, he joined ITC in 2004 as its General Counsel, where he has since helped shepherd the company’s strategy and growth. He helped lead ITC through its 2005 initial public offering, two acquisitions, and initiation of ITC’s business development efforts in Kansas and Oklahoma. Along the way, he added Senior Vice President to his General Counsel title at the growing company. He was named Executive Vice President of ITC in 2015 and was tapped to lead the company’s regulated grid development activity. In 2016, he was named Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer, assuming leadership for the company’s regulatory, federal affairs, marketing and
communications, human resources, strategic planning and enterprise planning process, state government affairs, and local community and government affairs functions. “I’m proud to be part of a company that is a leading voice in modernizing the nation’s power grid. Since we focus only on transmission, have no geographic constraints, and are independent from market participants, we view the power grid and its current and future needs from a unique and collaborative perspective,” he said. Mr. Oginsky points to GW Law and his other experiences in the capital as the building blocks of his career success. “The GW Law program and my early work in energy law contributed significantly to the important work I’m doing today,” he said. “I’m so grateful for those classes, professors, and professional mentors.” He advises those interested in pursuing energy law and a career in the energy industry to have a big-picture perspective. “The future power grid is about shifting our mindset: how and where we will get power in the future will be different. Those coming into this industry would be well served to think bigger, about the needs of the whole, all in the best interest of energy customers,” he said. n
in a Distributed Energy World” that will be part of a book prepared by the Academic Advisory Group on Energy of the International Bar Association Section on Environment, Energy, Resources and infrastructure Law. The book will be published by Oxford University Press in April 2018. She is currently serving as a research assistant to Professor Emily Hammond on a project involving science, public comment, and federal agencies. This summer, Ms. San Martano worked as an intern with the Environmental Defense Fund’s Clean Energy Program, where the bulk of her work focuses on issues relating to
renewables and advocacy for a clean and economically efficient electrical grid. She is also the Executive Articles Editor for Volume 50 of the International Law Review, a student-attorney for the International Human Rights Clinic at GW, and will be an intern with the EPA in spring 2018. After graduation, Ms. San Martano looks forward to continuing her work in environmental law. “It’s a really interesting time to be…in the environmental/energy field, and there is a lot of work to be done,” she said. n
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 3
PROFILES
Ron Borro, JD ’78, Professorial Lecturer in Law
R
on Borro’s 45 years of service for the United States Navy is hardly surprising. Indeed, his path to a career in public service began early in his childhood. “I grew up in a household where service to community and country were valued,” he said. “My father served in the Navy and was a police officer for most of the time when I was growing up. And that inspired me to give back to my country and community.” After graduating high school, Mr. Borro’s career in public service began when he received Ron Borro an appointment to the Naval Academy in 1969. When he graduated four years later, the thought of pursuing a law degree was already on his mind. “As I went through my four years at the academy and got to know more about myself and know where my skills were the strongest, the thought of law school started to develop,” he said. While he contemplated law school, Congress unveiled new legislation permitting the Navy to send select individuals to law school. Essentially, the Navy would foot the cost of law school in exchange for legal service upon graduation. Mr. Borro applied to the Navy’s Law Education Program and was accepted. He enrolled at GW Law in fall 1975. Mr. Borro graduated from GW Law in 1978 and returned to duty with the Navy as a member of the Judge Advocate Generals Corps. The broad mission of the Navy allowed him to experience an array of practice areas. His early work included criminal prosecution and defense, overseas assignments, and a stint as an Associate Professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. The opportunity to move
between practice areas was “one of the things [he] really liked about practicing law with the Navy.” Among the more memorable placements early in Mr. Borro’s career was an appointment as Staff Judge Advocate in Sicily. Specifically, he enjoyed the challenges the appointment presented. “First of all, you’re dealing with new, challenging issues on a daily basis. You were not just looking at how U.S. laws were being applied in the context of the Navy’s operations, you also were looking at how Italian laws were being applied to the Navy and individuals stationed there,” he said. “It was also a time when there was a lot going on. International tensions were high, and there were growing concerns about paramilitary movements—what we would call terrorist organizations today—like the Red Brigades. Being able to work with the U.S. government and Italian government on those issues was a great opportunity to broaden my perspective and better understand how law influenced policy and diplomacy.” One of his first environmental projects also occurred while stationed in Sicily. “We had to deal with cleaning up what had been a WWII German ammunition dump that had been long buried. It became an issue when unexploded ordnance was discovered during a routine construction project. That got me interested in what federal agencies could do in the context of protecting and securing the environment,” he said. After leaving Sicily, Mr. Borro had the opportunity to focus his practice in environmental law. As Deputy Director of Civil Litigation in the Office of the Judge Advocate General, much of his work involved policy and transactional aspects of environmental planning and compliance for military bases and facilities. He also worked on a series of cases in Nevada that dealt with the supersonic operation of jets at and near the Naval Air Station there. After 21 years of active duty, he retired in 1994. Shortly thereafter, he took his first civilian job: a position with the Navy’s Office of General Counsel. Much of his early work with this office focused
4 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
on developing a defensible process for conducting environmental analysis in support of Navy actions. The Navy began to focus on environmental planning after litigation challenging the adequacy of its environmental planning put a temporary stop to the mandatory shock testing of a new class of warships. Over the course of six or seven years, Mr. Borro worked with environmental planners, professional engineers, scientists, and naval officers to develop a system for environmental impact analysis that ensured Navy actions, from construction to home basing of new ships and aircraft to testing and training exercises, were in compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and standards. Between 1994 and 2007, Mr. Borro served as Senior Counsel within the Navy’s Office of the Assistant Secretary (Installations and Environment), where the majority of his work dealt with environmental planning, compliance, and clean up. In 2007, he was appointed to the Federal Senior Executive Service and assigned as Counsel, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment), where he managed the office providing legal counsel in the practice areas of energy, environmental, natural resources, safety, and real estate law. He currently serves as Associate General Counsel (Litigation) within the Department of the Navy and is an adjunct professor at GW Law, where he teaches a course focused on environmental laws at federal facilities. As both an educator and litigator, Mr. Borro is presently interested in the application of environmental statutes to federal facilities, especially the interplay between sovereign immunity and environmental enforcement mechanisms. He also is interested in the principles of e-discovery and changes in the practice of law driven by advances in technology, such as artificial intelligence. For those interested in environmental law, he notes the need for environmental practitioners to work with others within and beyond the legal profession. continued on page 5
PROFILES
Charles E. Di Leva, Professorial Lecturer in Law
C
harles E. Di Leva’s career in public interest environmental law began nearly 40 years ago when he took a position with the newly created Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM). As a young attorney working with the DEM, Mr. Di Leva worked closely with engineers, coastal marine and wetland experts, and hazardous waste teams to combat “years of lax enforcement and weak regulations,” he noted, and helped put together a new regulatory and enforcement system for Charles E. Di Leva the state. After one year with the DEM, he knew he had found his career. “It was an incredibly rich and exciting opportunity to help try to reverse these trends and to learn about all facets of [the] environment and then support those efforts in state, federal, and administrative litigation,” he said. After working with the DEM, he accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in what is now the Environmental and Natural Resources Division. For Mr. Di Leva and his family, the transition was a milestone. “As a first-generation American, and the first in my family to be able to go to college, my family and I were so proud
Professor Borro from page 4
“Environmental law is a team sport. You have to engage with the engineers, the planners, the biologists, with the professionals who understand how resources need to be managed, how contaminants are transmitted and move through the environment, and how resources can be sustained. There has to be an understanding that you’re more
that I could come to Washington to work for the DOJ and to help enforce the nation’s environmental laws,” he said. While at the DOJ, he worked on a number of highly visible cases under Superfund and other major environmental statutes and also learned to navigate the challenges posed in some cases where the U.S. was seen to be overreaching or where Superfund was seen as draconian, especially when cases involved small generators. Although his work at the DOJ brought him to all corners of the U.S., he became interested in the emerging area of multilateral environmental treaty law and soon began to contemplate a career that extended beyond the U.S. and into the international arena. So despite enjoying his work with the DOJ, he decided to leave and accept a role at the World Bank. “I loved my work at the DOJ and had not intended to leave, but working on issues of environment and development at the bank seemed an unusual challenge,” Mr. Di Leva said. At the World Bank, he worked on some of the organization’s largest projects “in almost every possible corner of the more than 100 countries in which the bank was providing finance.” Many of these projects “included extensive work related to the accountability of financial institutions and the kind of environmental and social standards that they should require for the borrowers and project entities that use these funds,” he said. Much of his work involved responsible finance, often referred to as green finance. Although his work at the World Bank differed from work done earlier in his
career, Mr. Di Leva found his time at the DEM and DOJ helped him navigate the complicated and controversial issues he faced and provided support for positions he took as an environmental lawyer at one of the world’s largest multilateral financial institutions, whose mission is to eradicate poverty while also ensuring that development is sustainable. As he approaches nearly 40 years of work in environmental law at state, federal, and international levels, Mr. Di Leva’s interest in environmental law has not faded. He is currently interested in the relationship between the environment and trade and has recently written about whether trade obligations will evolve in light of the Paris Agreement. Further, he is also intrigued by helping provide more clarity and accountability in the field of green finance and of private environmental governance, as well as in furthering environmental education for the judicial and professional sectors in developing countries, while also addressing environmental challenges here at home. For students interested in working in environmental law, Mr. Di Leva suggests working closely with experts in the social sciences, biology, and economics. He also suggests that future environmental lawyers develop their mediation and arbitration skills. “To be a good environmental lawyer requires a broad palette,” he said. He is currently an adjunct professor at both GW Law and American University Washington College of Law. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Environmental Law Institute. n
effective working as an interdisciplinary team,” he said. He also recommends that those interested in environmental law should not fear a move into practice areas they have not tried before, as “it is a wonderful opportunity to expand your world.” He also stresses the importance of trying public service.
“I think the whole idea of public service, of working for a federal agency or organization that gives you a chance to look at the bigger picture rather than focusing on a particular commercial client, is a wonderful opportunity. I would encourage everyone, at some point in their career, to get that experience,” he said. n
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 5
PROFILES • EVENTS
Josh Robichaud, JD ’18
J
osh Robichaud’s interest in renewable energy began during his undergraduate studies at Fairfield University, a small liberal arts school in southwest Connecticut. While studying politics and environmental policy, he developed a keen interest in international climate change issues. Shortly after graduating, Mr. Robichaud worked for a broker Josh Robichaud of renewable energy commodities. Recognizing he had a passion for renewable energy, he decided to attend law school to further pursue his interest in renewable energy. For Mr. Robichaud, GW Law was his top choice largely due to his desire to study in Washington, D.C., and the school’s proximity to both government and nonprofit organizations focused on sustainable development. In just two years, he has already taken advantage of the many opportunities that drew him to D.C. During the summer of his 1L year, Mr. Robichaud was an intern with the
American Wind Energy Association, a D.C.-based nonprofit that provides legal representation to wind energy providers, developers, and suppliers. He then spent his 2L fall as an intern with the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance. His work included drafting and filing an amicus brief in an Illinois appeals court. “My experience with these organizations was everything I could have hoped for in an internship. I was able to work on cutting-edge issues in the energy space with people who practice in the area every day,” he said. On campus, Mr. Robichaud served as a research assistant for Donna Attanasio, Senior Advisor for Energy Law Programs and Director of the Sustainable Energy Initiative. In this role, he helped Ms. Attanasio with a paper on microgrid finance that was published this spring. Mr. Robichaud was also a runner-up and was awarded Best Brief at the National Energy and Sustainability Moot Court Competition in Morgantown, West Virginia. He found the moot court competition particularly valuable, in part because of the useful coaching and feedback given by John Shepherd, Jr. and Andrew Corcoran. “The opportunity to work with and receive feedback from Skadden attorneys has been the most valuable experience I have had at GW Law,” he said.
Mr. Robichaud’s coursework also reflects his interest in environmental law and policy. In addition to courses dealing with energy regulation and oil and gas law, he took a seminar course focused on transitions in the U.S. electricity system. The course included weekly presentations from practitioners working on cutting edge issues and culminated with an invitation to attend a panel discussion at the Energy Bar Association’s annual meeting. This past summer, he was a summer associate at Bracewell, where he recently published an article discussing the impact the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kokesh v. SEC will have on FERC and CFTC enforcement. Mr. Robichaud is also Editor-in-Chief for Volume 9 of GW Law’s Journal of Energy and Environmental Law. n
Save the Date March 15-16, 2018 GW Law, in collaboration with ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources, will hold a symposium on March 15 and 16 focusing on the role of the Public Trust Doctrine in the 21st century. The idea for the symposium was triggered by the 800th anniversary of the Charter of the Forest and its link to public trust. We expect the symposium to include a discussion of the history of the Charter of the Forest. For more information on the symposium, contact Lee Paddock at lpaddock@law.gwu.edu.
6 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
FACULT Y PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Faculty Publications and Presentations Rob Glicksman Books: Developing Professional Skills in Environmental Law (West Academic 2016) (with Sandra Zellmer)
Edward Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Decision Making in Environmental Law (Edward Elgar 2016) (Robert L. Glicksman, LeRoy Paddock, & Nicholas Bryner eds.) NEPA Law and Litigation (Thomson Reuters 2017) (with Daniel Mandelker et. al) Public Natural Resources Law (updated three times annually) Book Chapters: “Introduction,” in Edward Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Decision Making in Environmental Law (Edward Elgar 2016) (Robert L. Glicksman, LeRoy Paddock, & Nicholas Bryner eds.)
“An Introduction to Environmental Compliance and Enforcement,” in Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (Edward Elgar 2017) (L. Paddock, D. Markell, & N. Bryner, eds.) Articles: “Dynamic Governance in Theory and Application, Part I,” 58 Ariz. L. Rev. 563 (2016) (with David Markell)
“Technological Innovation, Data Analytics, and Environmental Enforcement,” 44 Ecology L.Q . 41 (2017) (with David Markell & Claire Monteleoni) “Management of Federally Owned Grasslands in the Climate Change Era,” 26 Kan. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 324 (2017) Other Publications: “Trump’s Environmental Steamroller Bears Down on National Monuments,” CPRBlog, May 1, 2017, www. progressivereform.org/CPRBlog. cfm?idBlog=13FE94FA-F7D4-935A3C895B78AC18B27F
“No, They Don’t, Mr. Pruitt,” CPRBlog, Mar. 2, 2017, www.progressivereform.org/ CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=79445B2B-93A4889D-DE085A9A39710C88 “Congress Wants Land Agency to Ignore the Facts and Future,” CPRBlog, Feb. 28, 2017, www.progressivereform.org/ CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0ACD6185-06362092-811079BE2309B574 (with A. Camacho) “A misleading shot at the federal agency rulemaking process,” The Washington Post, Feb. 21, 2017, www.washingtonpost. com/opinions/a-misleading-shotat-the-federal-agency-rulemakingprocess/2017/02/20/2f9bf56c-f6fd11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_story. html?utm_term=.8ae55c708aef “Ryan Zinke’s Troubling Road to Interior Secretary,” CPRBlog ( Jan. 19, 2017), www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog. cfm?idBlog=3813EFCC-DC8E-AD9FC04381C6DCCAD2B0 Presentations: “Agency Behavior and Discretion on Remand,” presentation at symposium on “Environmental Law Without Courts,” Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, Fla. (Sept. 16, 2016), mediasite.capd.fsu.edu/Mediasite/Play/ a74c88f7c2c64f209cf4c42437e47b151d
“Reorganizing Government,” organized and presented at workshop on book project to a group of legal academics from law schools across the country, GW Law (Nov. 11, 2016) “Management of Federally Owned Grasslands in the Climate Change Era,” presentation at symposium on Grasslands: Balancing Preservation and Agriculture in the World’s Most Imperiled Ecosystem, University of Kansas School of Law, Lawrence (Feb. 17, 2017) “Reorganizing Government: A Functional and Dimensional Analysis,” presentation to faculty staff seminar at the University of Auckland Law Faculty of Law, Auckland, New Zealand (Feb. 28, 2017) “Donald Trump and the Demise of U.S. Environmental Law,” presentation to faculty at the University of South Australia School of Law (Mar. 8, 2017)
“The Challenges of Environmental Enforcement and the Trump Administration’s Enforcement Approach,” presentation to the Environmental Protection Authority of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia (Mar. 8, 2017) Meeting with officials of the Victoria, Australia Environmental Protection Authority, Melbourne, Australia (Mar. 20, 2017) “Reorganizing Government: A Functional and Dimensional Analysis,” presentation to faculty staff seminar at the University of Melbourne Law School, Melbourne, Australia (Mar. 20, 2017) “Climate Change Regulation under the Trump Administration,” presentation to class on Climate Change Law at the University of Melbourne Law School, Melbourne, Australia (Mar. 21, 2017) “Donald Trump and the Demise of U.S. Environmental Law,” presentation to faculty at the University of Melbourne Law School, Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law, Melbourne, Australia (Mar. 22, 2017) “Donald Trump and the Cataclysmic Demise of U.S. Environmental Law,” public presentation sponsored by the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law at the University of Sydney Law School, Sydney, Australia (Apr. 4, 2017) “Donald Trump’s Devastating Impact on Biodiversity,” presentation to class on Biodiversity Law at the University of Sydney Law School, Sydney, Australia (Apr. 5, 2017) “The Future of U.S. Environmental Law,” luncheon presentation to environmental law practitioners and judges convened by the Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law at the University of Sydney Law School, Sydney, Australia (Apr. 5, 2017) “How Legal Adaptive Capacity Shapes the Authority of Administrative Agencies to Pursue Climate Adaptation Efforts,” InterAgency Forum on Climate Risks, Impacts and Adaptation, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ( June 8, 2017) “The Structure of Food Safety Regulation,” presentation to GW Law faculty ( June 28, 2017) ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 7
FACULT Y PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Emily Hammond Grant: Nuclear Science and Security Consortium, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration; Start date: Nov. 1, 2016 (five years); $1.7 million Scholarly Journals: “Agency Behavior and Discretion on Remand,” Fla. St. J. Land Use & Envtl. L.J. (forthcoming 2017) (invited symposium) (with Rob Glicksman)
“Double Deference in Administrative Law,” 116 Colum. L. Rev. 1705 (2016) “Stranded Costs and Grid Decarbonization,” 82 Brooklyn L. Rev. 645 (2017) (invited symposium) (with Jim Rossi) Book Chapter: “Judicial Review of Agency Environmental Decisionmaking,” in Environmental Decisionmaking (Edward Elgar 2016) (Robert L. Glicksman et al., eds.) Shorter Works: “Pending House Bill Would Drastically Limit State Protections for Public Health, Safety, Environment,” CPRBlog.com ( July 25, 2017)
“The Electricity Mix of the Future— Foreword,” 8 Geo. Wash. J. Energy & Envt. 1 (2017) “Four Flaws for H.B. 4768,” ABA Administrative Law Section Newsletter (Aug. 2016) “Two Sticking Points for Absorbing Environmental Law Into Electricity Regulation—and Possibilities for the Future,” in Proceedings: Regulatory Governance 2016 (Tilburg University, The Netherlands, July 6, 2016) Consulting Reports: A Best Practices Guide for Water and Resource Water Utilities in Public-Private Partnerships and Energy Projects, prepared for the Water Research Foundation (forthcoming 2017)
Nuclear Power and the Clean Energy Future, prepared for Nuclear Matters by the Horinko Group (Sept. 2016)
National Service: ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Scholarship Award Committee (2017 – present)
Chair, Association of American Law Schools Administrative Law Section (2016-17) Awards and Honors: Professor Hammond was named the Glen Earl Weston Research Professor in July 2017. Congressional Testimony and Activities: Letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding Concerns with H.R. 2887 (No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2017) ( June 25, 2017) (on behalf of Member-Scholars of the Center for Progressive Reform)
Testimony: “Modernizing Environmental Laws: Challenges and Opportunities for Expanding Infrastructure and Promoting Development and Manufacturing,” before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment, 115th Congress (Feb. 16, 2017), energycommerce.house. gov/hearings-and-votes/hearings/ modernizing-environmental-lawschallenges-and-opportunities-expanding Letter to Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr., U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Regarding Concerns with H.R. 4768 (Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016) ( June 8, 2016) (on behalf of Member-Scholars of the Center for Progressive Reform) Presentations and Panels: Featured speaker, “Benefit-Cost Analysis and the Courts,” The Federalist Society Teleforum Conference Call, Aug. 11, 2017
Commentator, “Second Annual Administrative Law New Scholarship Roundtable,” Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, Columbus, June 27-28, 2017 Panelist, “Pathways to Tenure: Building Relationships and Distributing Your Ideas,” and breakout session leader, “Distributing Your Scholarship,” AALS Workshop for New Law School Teachers, Washington, D.C., June 23, 2017
8 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Co-Organizer (with Allison Macfarlane), Workshop on Public Participation in Nuclear Power Decision-making: Issues and Setting a Research Agenda, Washington, D.C., June 19, 2017 Panelist, “Administrative Law Year in Review,” D.C. Bar Association, Washington, D.C., June 7, 2017 Discussant, “Reimagining Administrative Law,” Book workshop for Elizabeth Fisher and Sidney Shapiro, Washington, D.C., May 18, 2017 “Stranded Costs and Grid Decarbonization,” Florida International University College of Law Faculty Colloquium, Coral Gables, FL, Apr. 25, 2017 “Decarbonization Policy: Lessons from the Water and Resource Water Sector,” Austin Electricity Conference, Austin, TX, Apr. 21, 2017 “The Federal Environmental Regulatory Outlook,” Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Mid-Atlantic Sustainability Network Meeting, Washington, D.C., Mar. 24, 2017 “A Debate on the Future of Chevron,” GW Law Federalist Society, Washington, D.C., Mar. 21, 2017 Discussant, “Workshop on Durability and Adaptability in Energy Policy,” American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Washington, D.C., Mar. 3, 2017 “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Update,” Power Shift, Washington, D.C., Feb. 12, 2017 Panelist, “Containment,” Nuclear Policy Talks Series, George Washington University, Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2017 Organizer and moderator, “New Directions in Administrative Law Scholarship,” Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Jan. 6, 2017 Organizer and discussant, “New Voices in Administrative Law,” Association of American Law Schools Annual Meeting, San Francisco, Jan. 5, 2017 Moderator, “The Future of Deference,” ABA Administrative Law Conference, Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 2016 Discussant with Alex Camacho and Rob Glicksman, “(Re)Organizing Government,” Washington, D.C., Nov. 11, 2016
FACULT Y PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Panelist, “Judicial Review of BenefitCost Analysis,” ABA Administrative Law Section, Society for Benefit Cost Analysis, and GW Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2016 “Nuclear Power and the Clean Energy Future,” Bloomberg, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2016 “Agency Discretion on Remand,” Conference on Agency Behavior in the Absence of Judicial Review, Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, Sept. 16, 2016 “The Deference Doctrines,” Seminar for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, White Flint, MD, Aug. 24, 2016 “An Energy Regulatory Perspective of EPA’s Clean Power Plan,” ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Teleforum, Aug. 23, 2016 “Policy Narratives for Nuclear Power,” American Nuclear Society Utility Working Conference Plenary Session, Amelia Island, FL, Aug. 16, 2016 Panelist, “Administrative Law Year In Review,” D.C. Bar Association, Washington D.C., July 14, 2016 “Two Sticking Points for Absorbing Environmental Law Into Electricity Regulation—and Possibilities for the Future,” Tilburg University, The Netherlands, July 6, 2016
Donna Attanasio Publications: Microgrid Momentum; Building Efficient, Resilient Power, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions March 2017 (with Doug Vine and Ekundayo Shittu)
Editor, “Conference Proceedings Report, Transforming the U.S. Electric System: Where State and Federal Initiative Meet,” 8 Geo. Washington J. of Energy and Env. L. 121 (spring 2017) Presentations and Panels: Panelist, “U.S. Perspectives on Energy Sector Evolution,” Ontario Energy Association, Toronto, Canada. November 29, 2016
Moderator, “Microgrid Momentum: Building Efficient, Resilient Power,” Washington, D.C., March 8, 2017 Panelist, “Emissions Reductions and Electricity Transmission: A Road to Innovative Solutions or A Stalemate?,” ABA Section of International Law Meeting, Washington, D.C., April 26, 2017 Panelist, “Regulatory Perspectives on Microgrids,” Microgrids Meet the Markets 2017 Conference, Washington, D.C., June 13, 2017 Moderator, “Valuing and Preserving the Environmental Benefits of Nuclear Power,” Indianapolis, IN, July 27, 2017 Consulting and Other Activities: This spring, the Department of Energy’s Next Generation Distribution System Platform team published a three-volume series on architecture and technology for the distribution grid of the future. The series is a tool designed to help regulators and other stakeholders understand the scope of the transition that is underway, to varying degrees in different parts of the country, by tracing a path between commonly expressed objectives and the technology that will be required to achieve those objectives. Donna Attanasio participates in the core team that is developing the series, to help support the policy and legal context in which the findings would be applied.
Minnesota’s e21 Initiative completed Phase II of its multi-year stakeholder project to develop guidance for the next-generation electric system in Minnesota with the publication of its report On Implementing a Framework for a 21st Century Electric System In Minnesota, released in December 2016. Donna Attanasio has been a member of the e21 core team since inception of the project in February 2014 and was a contributor to the report.
LeRoy Paddock Books: Edward Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Decision Making in Environmental Law (R. Glicksman, L. Paddock & N. Bryner eds., 2016)
Elgar Encyclopedia of Environmental Law: Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (L. Paddock, D. Markell & N. Bryner, eds.) (2017) Innovation in Energy Law and Technology: Dynamic Solutions for Climate Change, Sustainability, and Security, Oxford University Press, Academic Advisory Group on Energy for the IBA’s Section on Environment, Energy, Resources and Infrastructure Law, forthcoming 2018 (L. Paddock, co-ed.) Book Chapters: “Monitoring and Enforcement: The United States Clean Water Act Model” in The Routledge Handbook of Water Law and Policy (with Laura Mulherin, JD ’17)
“Energy Supply Planning in a Distributed Energy World,” in Innovation in Energy Law and Technology: Dynamic Solutions for Climate Change, Sustainability, and Security, Oxford University Press, Academic Advisory Group on Energy for the IBA’s Section on Environment, Energy, Resources and Infrastructure Law, forthcoming 2018 (with Karyan San Martano, JD ’18) Articles: “Stemming the Deforestation Tide: The Role of Corporate Deforestation Commitments” 7 Geo. Wash. J. Energy & Envtl. Law 205 (fall 2016) Presentations and Panels: Panelist, “Sustainability and Sustainable Business,” Southeast Association of Law Schools Meeting, August 2016
Panelist, “Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and the Conservation of Nature,” International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s World Conservation Congress, Honolulu, Hawaii, September 7, 2016 Moderator, “We’ll Always Have Paris: Sustaining Global Climate Action in the Face of Political Change,” ABA Section of International Law Meeting, Washington, D.C., April 26, 2017 Academic Advisory Group Meeting Section on Energy, Environment, Resources and Infrastructure Law, International Bar Association, Almería, Spain, May 10, 2017 International Energy Law Seminar: Legal Challenges of a New Energy Model, Madrid, Spain, May 11-12, 2017
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 9
FACULT Y PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS • NEWS
Athabasca Glacier off the Columbia Ice Fields in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada.
Institute for Natural Resources Law Teachers, Banff, Canada, May 31-June 2, 2017 Moderator, “The Military Microgrid Market Outlook: Resiliency and Mission Assurance Move to Center Stage in Energy Procurement,” Microgrids Meet the Markets 2017 Conference, Washington, D.C., June 13, 2017
Caitlin McCoy Book Chapter: “New Buildings” in. Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States, (Environmental Law Institute Publishing forthcoming 2018) (Dernback, John and Gerrard, Michael, eds.) (with LeRoy Paddock)
News e21 Initiative Issues Phase II Report
P
erformance-based ratemaking, integrated system planning, and grid modernization are the subjects covered in the e21 Phase II Report, released on December 7, 2016. The report results from a two-year exploration by the e21 participants on how electric service in Minnesota could be enhanced in the coming decades by applying new approaches to utility compensation, resource planning, and grid investments. The three white papers included in the report grew out of e21’s Phase I work, which recommended reforms in utility
Other Activities: Caitlin also has been serving as an adviser to the International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA), a consortium of national and international environmental nongovernmental organizations working to address aircraft CO2 emissions and noise. ICSA works with the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on economic and environmental analysis in the sector, and, most recently, the development of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). Caitlin has joined the Global Market-Based-Measure Task Force (GMTF) as a legal expert, consulting on the enforceability of the standards and recommended practices being created to implement the CORSIA. She attended the weeklong GMTF/11 meeting at ICAO headquarters in Montreal, Canada, in June 2017 and will attend additional meetings and events over the next year. n
compensation, regulation, distribution-edge pricing, and planning. While the report is written for use by Minnesota decision-makers and stakeholders, the report explores concepts that are being discussed nationally and internationally and reflects the views of a diverse group of stakeholders. Thus, it is expected to have wider applicability as other jurisdictions consider how these new ideas might translate from theory to practice in their service areas. Through Dean Lee Paddock’s leadership and Donna Attanasio’s participation, GW Law was an active member of e21 from its inception. Inclusion of GW Law helped to bring a wider perspective to the group and also served as a portal for outreach to national audiences. Ms. Attanasio and other e21 participants have been invited to speak about e21’s work before numerous organizations
1 0 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Environmental and Energy Law Perspectives Environmental and Energy Law Perspectives is published annually by the Environmental and Energy Law Program at the George Washington University Law School. Editor: Lee Paddock, Associate Dean for Environmental Studies Assistant Editor: Caitlin McCoy, Visiting Associate Professor of Law and Environmental Program Fellow Send questions or comments to: Lee Paddock lpaddock@law.gwu.edu 202.994.0417 The George Washington University Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program 2000 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20052 www.law.gwu.edu/ environmental-energy-law bit.ly/linkedin_gwlaw_eelaw
nationwide. The breadth of this pool illustrates how the concepts that e21 explored have seized interest across the United States and the important role this stakeholder-led initiative is playing in addressing transformation of the U.S. electric system. The work of e21 helped to inspire and inform Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) own work in these areas. Since inception of e21, the PUC has launched its own grid modernization proceeding and is set to begin an inquiry into rate reform next year. Given the increased activity of the PUC in these areas, the e21 project is contemplating new roles for Phase III, in which it would trade its leadership position for one of reinforcement and complementary support to the PUC as Minnesota contemplates how to best prepare for the future. n
NEWS
Updates from the Sustainable Energy Initiative at GW Law: Transforming the U.S. Electric System: Where State and Federal Initiatives Meet
O
n October 27, GW Law’s Sustainable Energy Initiative welcomed thought-leaders from across the United States for a one-day conference on transforming the electric grid. Presenters explained the programs their organizations have recommended, planned, or undertaken in reaction to, or to proactively address, the changing landscape of electric production, transmission, distribution, and usage. The presenters and the audience also identified a number of challenges that underscore the difficulty of the task ahead. The conference was structured to examine state and utility initiatives from different regions of the country, all from states served by vertically integrated utilities: Minnesota, California, the portion of the southeastern United States served by Southern Company, and the City of New Orleans. Speakers from both the public and private spheres shared a diverse range of viewpoints. Representatives from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, and the U.S. Department of Energy discussed what their organizations are doing at the national level to transform the electric system to meet 21st century needs. Additional perspectives on development of the future electric system were offered by representatives of SunRun, Oracle, and the Energy Storage Association. John Howat, a leading consumer advocate, discussed the concerns of low-income residential and small commercial consumers, and a panel of experts led the audience discussion to synthesize the many issues addressed over the course of the day.
Amy Fredregill, Resource Planning and Strategy Manager at Xcel Energy, speaks on one of the panels.
The presenters identified a number of drivers that are forcing change and adaptation. Those included oft-cited forces such as the expansion of customer-owned and customer-sited distributed energy resources; changing customer needs, including for electric vehicle infrastructure; a desire to move to cleaner forms of energy; and grid security. While resiliency, which has driven a lot of the re-development on the East Coast in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, was not frequently flagged, concerns with climate change were highlighted, particularly with respect to New Orleans and the ongoing drought in California. Some of the other drivers mentioned, which are perhaps cited less often but figured heavily in the day’s discussion, were the changing cost of technology, such as the decline in the cost of wind power; the interdependence of electricity with gas and communications networks, which could be a weakness or, if managed well, yield value from convergence; and the management and potential for improved utilization of data. Overall, there was a strong sentiment that a significant change to the electric system is inevitable, and the companies most likely to thrive are those that embrace the prospect of change and treat it as an opportunity.
The presenters also identified multiple challenges—some of which seem rather intractable—that must be addressed on the path to change. Those challenges include the unclear boundary between state and federal authority; how to value distributed energy resources, storage, and other new technologies, including giving appropriate weight to their locational value and monetizing that value to encourage appropriate levels of investment; affordability, particularly for low-income customers and those who want and need only a very basic level of service; the role of government financial support; regulatory resources and approaches; and cost recovery. Cost containment, necessary to maintaining reasonable rates, was also a predominant theme, particularly in light of the dual problems of flat load growth and the need for grid modernization. n
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 1 1
NEWS
Microgrid Momentum
O
n March 8, 2017, GW Law, the GW School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) presented a program on microgrids, in conjunction with release of their co-written paper on developing and financing microgrids. The program and paper are both available online. Key takeaways from the research, as reported in the paper: • Microgrids currently provide a tiny fraction of U.S. electricity (about 1.6 gigawatts [GW] of installed microgrid capacity or less than 0.2 percent), but their capacity is expected to more than double in the next three years. • Each microgrid’s unique combination of power source, customers, geography, and market can make financing these projects a challenge. • States can play a key role in facilitating microgrid development. Most existing microgrid projects are concentrated in seven states: Alaska, California, Georgia, Maryland, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas. Some states, including California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, have created funding opportunities for microgrids. States can assist project developers by providing funding, grants, or low-cost loans to perform feasibility
studies or to aid in demonstration and commercialization. • Most states lack even a legal definition of a microgrid, and regulatory and legal challenges can differ between and within states. A clearer legal framework is needed to define a microgrid and set forth the rights and obligations of the microgrid owner with respect to its customers and the macrogrid operator. • To develop supportive frameworks and policies, it will be vital to promote greater dialogue among the finance community, service providers and implementers, government officials at all levels, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders.
The Program
T
he discussion panels brought together people designing, owning, planning, and operating microgrids for a frank look at the real-world obstacles. The two-and-a-half-hours of discussion were too rich to briefly but fully summarize, but a number of key ideas and myth-busting points stood out. Not surprisingly, scale and good design that integrate state of the art technologies are keys to success. Solar alone cannot support a microgrid in a dense urban area because the load is disproportionate to the available roof space. However, solar is a valuable contributor when combined with CHP and/or storage, as appropriate to the thermal loads and needs of the customers served. The emergence of cost-effective storage is an important development to help
Janet Peace, Sr. VP of Policy and Business Strategies, C2ES (left), and Donna Attanasio, GW Law (right), moderated panel discussions.
microgrids interact with the grid in the most economic manner while meeting their interconnected customers’ needs. There appeared to be a general consensus that a microgrid intended solely as an emergency back-up resource was unlikely to be financially viable; value must come from day-to-day use of the resource. Even then, extracting value at multiple levels (e.g., retail and wholesale markets, ancillary service markets as well as electric energy, and maybe thermal energy) makes the financial model for these resources difficult to predict and establish, particularly where the laws are still unclear. Nevertheless, the panelists appeared to view microgrids as having great potential to improve system efficiency, resilience, and local reliability as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, subject to continued refinement of the economic model and use cases. Support for the program and the paper came from the Duke Energy Renewables Innovation Fund and the GW Sustainability Collaborative. n
Transition of Presidential Administrations Tracked by ABA
T
he American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources has been tracking the fast-paced legislative, regulatory, and judicial developments occurring under the new presidential administration with their Transition
of Administrations Tracker Resources Page. The page consists of timely information about proposed legislation, congressional hearings, executive orders, litigation, rulemaking activities, and other administrative actions. GW Law’s Environmental and Energy Law
1 2 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
Association is helping with this project by covering updates related to the Clean Air Act on a weekly basis. For more information please visit www. americanbar.org/groups/environment_ energy_resources/resources/transition. html. n
NEWS
2017 J.B. & Maurice C. Shapiro Environmental Law Symposium on Private Environmental Governance
T
he annual GW Law Shapiro Symposium in spring 2017 focused on the issue of Private Environmental Governance. The program was co-sponsored by the GW Business School and the Vanderbilt University Law School and Department of Sociology. Private companies over the last few years have developed a number of sometimes very elaborate green supply chain mechanisms in response to a number of factors, including customer desires and protecting their reputation, among many other factors. These programs have begun to play a significant role in addressing significant issues that are often international
in nature, such as deforestation, conflict minerals, and climate. The conference explored the reasons that private governance is important in achieving more sustainable environmental outcomes, as well as the various types of private environmental governance that have emerged, with a significant focus on private governance in the climate context. The program also included a discussion of what factors motivate private environmental governance and what accountability mechanisms are available to ensure private governance is accomplishing actual results. The program concluded with perspectives on what is likely to occur in the field of environmental governance over the next few years, particularly in light of the likely changes in the Trump administration. A special symposium edition of the GW Law Journal of Energy and Environmental Law on private environmental governance is forthcoming and will be available on their website: gwjeel.com. The symposium edition will feature essays from many of the panelists, elaborating on the materials they presented and reflecting on discussions at the symposium. n
INECE Partners with EELA on Monthly Newsletter
T
hree students from GW Law’s Environmental and Energy Law Association are working in connection with the Environmental Law Institute to co-edit the monthly newsletter of the International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE). The newsletter is distributed to INECE members. Students Clayton Cope, Andrew Landolfi, and Rachel Sullivan will be working on this project over the next academic year. The International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE) develops and implements practical and innovative activities that strengthen environmental compliance and enforcement at all levels of governance–local, national, regional, and international. INECE builds the capacity of compliance and enforcement stakeholders to contribute to the rule of law and good governance in areas that advance sustainable development. The network includes environmental regulators, investigators, prosecutors, judges, and employees of international environmental and development organizations. Officials from customs, the police, non-governmental organizations, academia, the media, and business also participate. n
From left to right, Professor Michael Vandenbergh and Professor Zdravka Tzankova from Vanderbilt University, Visiting Professor Caitlin McCoy and Associate Dean Lee Paddock from GW Law, and Professor John Forrer from GW Business School.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 1 3
NEWS
2017 Jamie Grodsky Prize Awarded Alumnus Thomas Alford Wins 2017 Grodsky Prize
T
homas Alford, LLM ’16, was recently presented with the 2017 Jamie Grodsky Prize for Environmental Law Scholarship. The prize, which commemorates the life of Professor Jamie A. Grodsky, recognizes an original paper by a GW Law student in the environmental field as judged by a panel. Major Alford, a JAG officer in the U.S. Air Force, submitted his paper in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws in Government Procurement and Environmental Law. The winning paper, “Off the Grid: Facilitating the Acquisition of Microgrids for Military Installations to Achieve Energy Security and Sustainability,” discussed the process for obtaining energy security for key Department of Defense (DoD) facilities. The Grodsky Prize was presented in conjunction with the annual J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Environmental Law Conference. The Grodsky family attended the event. On the day of the ceremony, Major Alford shared that he had a memorable experience learning about the life and career of Professor Grodsky, who passed away in May 2010. “She was truly an amazing lawyer and professor and, by all accounts, a terrific person. I’m very much honored to have received an award bearing her name. I’m not sure I’m worthy of the honor, but I’m glad this important issue is receiving more attention,” he said.
About “Off the Grid”
When Major Alford learned about high-profile failures in the electrical grid, particularly the 2013 sniper attack on the Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Transmission Substation in California, he was inspired and wanted to learn
From left: LeRoy C. Paddock, Associate Dean for Environmental Studies; GW Law Professor Emily Hammond; Dr. Gerold Grodsky, Professor Jamie Grodsky’s father; Major Thomas Alford, LLM ‘16; Dean Blake D. Morant; Andrea Huber, Professor Grodsky’s sister.
more about the topic of energy security. The attack knocked out power for all of Silicon Valley and caused about $15 million worth of damages. “Because I’m a military officer, I began to think of the military ramifications of relying upon such a fragile and dated civilian power grid, and the more I researched, the more I learned that others—including many folks high in the federal government— were sounding the alarm that the DoD is far too reliant upon the civilian electrical grid for its energy needs. Even now, the DoD relies on the civilian grid for about 98% of its power,” he said. “The paper argues that the DoD can kill two birds with one stone. For one, the paper attempts to facilitate the DoD’s acquisition of microgrids and decentralized power generation facilities, which are technologies that allow the DoD’s core assets to ‘island’ and function on their own in the event of a catastrophic failure of the civilian power grid. I try to help navigate through some of the procurement and environmental regulatory hurdles DoD faces. And, second, I argue that, in the process of obtaining energy security for key DoD facilities, the DoD would also become more and more dependent upon ‘clean’ energy produced on or near its bases. Those clean energy
1 4 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
sources include wind, solar, thermal energy, energy storage, and a new technology called ‘modular nuclear reactors,’ which are still in development, but are far safer than traditional nuclear power. That shift towards clean energy, of course, benefits the environment overall since the DoD consumes over one percent of the nation’s power.” —Major Thomas Alford The views expressed in this story are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. n
NEWS • PERSPECTIVES
Groningen-GW Summer Program Highlights
E
ach year, GW Law and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands conduct a short program on energy law that allows students to understand the different approaches taken in the European Union and the United States. Students conduct in-depth research on an energy law issue, such as regulation of battery storage, the smart grid, emergency energy reserves, and others. The students then work in teams to prepare a joint paper comparing the approach used by the EU with that taken in the United States and make recommendations to address any identified problem areas. n
California’s Innovations from page 1
GHG emissions that scientists have calculated to be necessary to slow the rapid progression of global climate change are unlikely to be driven by federal policies in the near future. States concerned about climate change are now preparing to serve as laboratories for policies, laws, and programs to mitigate and adapt to climate change.2 Most states are already working to reduce GHG emissions and integrate more renewable sources into their energy generation mixes. To date, 29 states, Washington, D.C., and three U.S. territories have adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS),3 while eight states and one territory have established renewable energy targets.4 As states look at ways to expand on these efforts and undertake new initiatives, it is beneficial to learn from California’s advances which have spanned efforts to reduce GHG emissions, increase the use of renewable energy, spur development of energy storage, reduce energy needs in new homes and buildings, and incentivize and prepare for the transition to electric vehicles. In this article, I will briefly highlight some of those policies before addressing
GW Law students Josh Robichaud 2L (third from left) and Mace Phillips 2L (far right) join University of Groningen students on bicycle trip to a meeting.
some of the challenges of adopting such policies in other states and concluding with lessons learned from California’s efforts over the years.
Carbon Cap-and-Trade Program California’s Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 seeks to reduce the state’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This law established the cap-and-trade program for GHG emissions in California, covering large businesses emitting more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, including utilities and large industrial sources.5 Under the final regulations, all utilities operating in the state receive allowances to use for projected GHG emissions as well as allowances based on projected emission reductions. On July 17, California legislators voted to extend the program to 2030 with bipartisan support with the aim to reduce GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.6 There are valid criticisms of the cap-and-trade program and analyses that claim that much of the state’s GHG reductions have been achieved through the combination of programs that comprise its climate change
mitigation efforts.7 The fact remains that California has reduced its GHG emissions to 440.4 million tons CO2 equivalent in 2015 from 476.5 million tons CO2 equivalent in 2006, while experiencing net economic, population, and employment growth.8 The cap-and-trade program is the centerpiece of California’s climate action plan and it has catalyzed efforts to reduce emissions in a pioneering model of what is possible at a state level to reduce emissions.9
Renewable Energy Targets Beyond AB 32, California has enacted several laws and standards to stimulate the growth of renewable energy and to increase the proportion of renewable energy in the state’s energy mix. State laws, SB2 (1-X) from 2011 and SB 350 from 2015, require California utilities to set incremental renewable portfolio standard (RPS) procurement targets in accordance with increasing state-wide targets and to adopt new renewable resource eligibility definitions and reporting requirements. Senate Bill 2 (1-X) passed in 2011 established the target of 33 percent of total electricity sold to retail customers per year to be generated from eligible continued on page 16
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 1 5
PERSPECTIVES
California’s Innovations from page 15
renewable energy resources by December 31, 2020. This was codified in the Public Utilities Act and subsequently modified by Senate Bill 350 in 2015 to reflect a target of 50 percent by December 31, 2030, along with other revisions to the RPS program and to certain other requirements on public utilities and publicly owned electric utilities.10 There is increasing evidence that those targets are achievable. In 2016, California sourced about 29 percent of the power in its electricity retail sales from renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric).11 The California legislature recently considered Senate Bill 100 that proposes setting a goal of reaching 100 percent renewable energy by 2045. Specifically, SB 100 would require utilities to reach 50 percent renewable energy by the end of 2026 and 60 percent renewables by the end of 2030 with the aim to reach 100 percent renewables by 2045.12 The California Senate passed the bill at the end of May 2017, but the Assembly did not vote on it by the last day of legislative session, so no action will be taken on the bill until next year.13
Energy Storage Requirements Assembly Bill 2514 in 2010, as amended by Assembly Bill 2227 in 2012, required California utilities to incorporate energy storage into the electric grid by determining an appropriate target for the procurement of viable and cost-effective energy storage systems. The timelines and processes for determining these targets varied according to whether the utilities were publicly owned or investor-owned.14 Publicly owned utilities (POUs) had to adopt a target, if appropriate, by October 2014 to be achieved by the end of December 2016. The energy storage targets are then reevaluated every three years, and the second target should be achieved by the end of December 2020. The first round of compliance reports was submitted to the California Energy Commission on January 1, 2017.15 Most POUs made the determination that it was not cost-effective to adopt a storage target in the first phase; some also discussed setting targets for future
phases, conducting studies and involvement in pilot projects.16 A few POUs adopted storage targets and completed projects, including the City of Glendale, Imperial Irrigation District, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Redding Electric Utility, and Silicon Valley Power.17 For investor-owned utilities, Assembly Bill 2514 required the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to open a proceeding to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the state’s three investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems. In October 2013, the CPUC issued Decision 13-10-040, creating a new program requiring utilities to procure 1,325 megawatts (MW) of new storage by 2020, with installation no later than 2024.18 Every two years, the utilities must issue requests for offers with defined MW targets, divided into three categories: 1) transmission-interconnected projects; 2) distribution-interconnected projects; and 3) behind-the-meter projects, such as electric vehicles or home battery systems for solar. In September 2016, the CPUC approved the three IOUs’ 2016 biennial energy storage procurement applications,19 which solicit a combined statewide total of 135.3 MW of additional electricity storage.20 The CPUC is now working on implementation of AB 2868 (2016), which allows the CPUC to increase the energy storage procurement target by up to 500 MW and to be allocated evenly across the three IOUs.21
Renewable Energy Incentives Senate Bill 1 (SB1), expanded the California Solar Initiative and California Energy Commission’s New Solar Homes Partnership. SB1 initiated a statewide effort to implement solar energy incentive programs known as “Go Solar California” and mandated that building projects meet minimum energy efficiency requirements to apply for ratepayer-funded incentives for solar systems.22 Senate Bill 1332 (SB 1332) required publicly owned utilities with 75,000 or more customers to adopt a standard feedin-tariff (FIT) by July 1, 2013.23 The FIT program enables third parties to develop
1 6 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
solar generation, or other renewable energy,24 and sell the power to a utility. The FIT itself is a standard price offered to pay power producers. By purchasing power through a FIT, POUs make progress toward achievement of their RPS requirements from SB 350. The law sets the maximum size of an individual FIT project at 3 MW; however, the utility may set a lower maximum FIT project size if necessary. SB 1332 also requires utilities to offer their FIT tariff, on a first-come, first-served basis, to owners and operators of eligible renewable power facilities within the utility’s jurisdiction, until the utility has reached its proportionate share of the statewide cap of 750 MW of cumulative rated generation capacity served under the FIT. Investor-owned utilities are part of a similar feed-in-tariff program, the renewable market adjusting tariff (ReMAT), for small renewable generators (less than 3 MW). The IOUs have divided up the capacity as follows: Pacific Gas & Electric: 218.8 MW; Southern California Edison: 226.0 MW; and San Diego Gas & Electric: 48.8 MW.25
Electric Vehicles Efforts to reduce emissions extend into the transportation sector as California works to build the infrastructure to support a growing number of electric vehicles. The state has an electric vehicle rebate program, Clean Vehicle Rebate, which has been used for more than 100,000 vehicles since 2010 and has proved to be so popular that funding is now an issue.26 California’s three IOUs are seeking to add charging stations for electric vehicles and to undertake other related projects.27 If approved, well over 10,000 new charging stations could be installed in the upcoming years. California aims to have the zero-emission vehicle infrastructure to support one million vehicles by 2020, in line with Governor Jerry Brown’s goal of 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025. The state reached the capability to support 250,000 electric vehicles in late 2016. Municipal utilities are also engaged in electric vehicle infrastructure initiatives. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a public
PERSPECTIVES
utility, operated the “Charge Up LA!” EV Charger Rebate Program, and from June 2013 to November 2015, more than $2.8 million of EV charger rebates were provided to support 1,970 chargers.28
Energy Efficiency For IOUs, the CPUC adopts energy efficiency goals by considering “potentially achievable cost-effective electric and natural gas energy efficiency measures,” conducts studies, reviews IOU energy procurement plans, and performs evaluation, measurement and verification of energy efficiency reductions.29 POUs must report their annual investments in energy efficiency programs and the results of their demand reduction programs to their customers and the California Energy Commission. As part of their Integrated Resource Plans, due every five years, they must consider energy efficiency as an energy supply alternative.30 The Energy Commission also develops statewide energy efficiency potential estimates and savings targets and incorporates POU achievements in this assessment.
Zero-Energy Buildings and Building Codes California’s 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards,31 which became effective January 2017, apply to new residential and nonresidential buildings and provide mandatory, prescriptive, and performance standards for building windows, doors, walls, floors and roofscalled the “building envelope.”32 The California Energy Commission has estimated that the implementation of the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards will reduce statewide annual electricity consumption by about 281 gigawatt-hours per year, natural gas consumption by 16 million therms per year and greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent in effect to 160,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually.33 California also has “CALGreen,” the California Green Building Standards Code, now in its third edition, which also became effective January 2017.34 The code’s purpose is in part to “encourage sustainable construction practices” and address material conservation and
energy efficiency among other values.35 The CALGreen code provides mandatory and voluntary requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings (including buildings for retail, office, public schools, and hospitals) throughout California. The code applies broadly to “every newly constructed building or structure on a statewide basis, unless otherwise indicated.”36 The mandatory standards have requirements around providing for electric vehicle charging, including six percent of parking spaces in lots for non-residential buildings provide EV chargers.37 Several “Zero Energy” communities have been built in California over the last few years, with more planned for the near future. These communities are composed of houses and multi-unit buildings that produce as much energy as they consume, predominantly with photovoltaic solar panels, and feature other environmentally conscious and energy efficient designs and technologies that will soon be required for new single-family homes and multifamily residential buildings.38 As of early 2016, California had 1,538 net-zero buildings, more than any other state.39
International Cooperation California Governor Jerry Brown was a fixture at the Paris Agreement negotiations, working to highlight the role of sub-national government units and provide a forum for them to make climate commitments.40 After President Trump’s announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, many of the new and continued commitments to climate action reflected in the We Are Still In41 and America’s Pledge42 campaigns came from cities, counties, and higher education institutions in California. Governor Brown recently announced that California will host a climate summit in September 2018 for leaders of states, cities, businesses, and others who have pledged to reduce emissions in relation to the Paris Agreement.43
What other states can learn from California’s experimentation California has many features that make it a unique laboratory for these experiments, and it is important to acknowledge
some of these features and their role in these efforts before discussing what other states can take away from California’s initiatives. Most notably, California has the largest gross domestic product (GDP) of all U.S. states.44 The state’s financial prowess arguably makes it easier to take risks and invest heavily in modernization of its electricity system. Yet, California has seen its economy grow from the time it adopted AB 32, from a GDP of $1.6 trillion in 2006 to $2.46 trillion in 2015.45 California’s innovations in the energy sector have attracted $5.7 billion in venture capital investment in clean energy technologies and the solar industry has become a major part of the economy and a major employer.46 It is beyond the scope of this article to assess whether California’s economy facilitated its efforts, whether its efforts have provided economic dividends or a combination of both. Regardless, the risks taken by government officials, utilities, and individual consumers seem to have resulted in benefits for the state’s economy and contributions to mitigating global climate change.47 Manufacturing is often considered incompatible with dramatic reductions in GHG emissions and a largely renewable energy system. However, California still has the largest manufacturing output (in dollars) of all states, predominantly in computers and electronics,48 and employs more people in the sector than any other state, though representing only 7.9 percent of California’s workforce.49 California has a diverse, dynamic economy that is a testament to the fact that action to reduce GHG emissions is not irreconcilable with a strong economy and manufacturing sector.50 California is also unique in its political will to undertake these efforts with bipartisan support for reducing GHG emissions, cooperation of utilities and businesses, and state funding supporting many programs. However, there is always a vigorous debate, and sometimes litigation, challenging these laws and policies. The following are lessons learned from California’s work on environmental and energy policies over the years to reduce GHG emissions. continued on page 18
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 1 7
PERSPECTIVES
California’s Innovations from page 17
First, a cap-and-trade program at the state level can be a powerful tool in reducing GHG emissions. However, as in the case of California, the extent of its impact can be difficult to chart when combined with a suite of other GHG reduction policies, like robust renewable portfolio standards. Thus, if a state lacks the political support to create a cap-andtrade program, it can create a multifaceted climate action plan with elements from California that can still achieve major reductions. Such a plan could include adopting more ambitious renewable portfolio standards, accelerating the progression of RPS, mandating increased energy efficiency for electric utilities and new buildings, and providing incentives for consumers that invest in renewable energy and move toward zero-energy homes and buildings. Second, with California charting the course into energy storage opportunities, other states will be better able to assess the costs and benefits of energy storage for their utilities and their grids. Costs may also drop as a result of California’s energy storage mandates as investments in energy storage technologies increase, potentially spurring innovations, increasing efficiency, and lowering prices. Third, in order to implement the aforementioned steps, states can look to the laws and regulatory programs in California and other states working to reduce GHG emissions that lay the groundwork for a clean energy future by customizing and adopting legislation on energy efficiency and renewable energy based on laws in California and other states.51 Fourth, states can consider joining one or more of the coalitions committed to climate action, U.S. Climate Alliance, We Are Still In, and America’s Pledge, and filing a commitment with the UNFCCC to demonstrate their efforts to address climate change to the broader national and international communities.
Endnotes
New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). 1
2 See U.S. Climate Alliance, www. usclimatealliance.org/
A regulatory mandate to increase production of energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar, biomass and other alternatives to fossil fuel generation. 3
4 National Conference of State Legislatures, Sate Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals, (Aug. 1, 2017) www.ncsl.org/research/ energy/renewable-portfolio-standards.aspx 5 California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, Reporting Guidance for Determining Rule Applicability for California’s 2013 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulation www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ ghg-rep/guidance/applicability.pdf 6 Melanie Mason and Chris Megerian, California Legislature extends cap-and-trade program in rare bipartisan effort to address climate change, Los Angeles Times ( July 17, 2017) www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-cacalifornia-climate-change-vote-republicans20170717-story.html
Craig Miller, 10 Years In, Has California’s Climate Law Really Lowered Emissions?, KQED Science (Sept. 26, 2016) ww2.kqed. org/science/2016/09/26/10-years-in-hascalifornias-climate-law-really-loweredemissions/ 7
California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 2017 Edition www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/ data.htm 8
9 Adrienne Alvord, Ten Years After: Looking Back on California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), Union of Concerned Scientists Blog (Aug. 3, 2016) blog. ucsusa.org/adrienne-alvord/californiaglobal-warming-solutions-act-ab-32-bythe-numbers
SB 350, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient. xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350
10
11 California Energy Commission, Tracking Progress: Renewable Energy – Overview, p. 1 www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_ progress/documents/renewable.pdf 12 SB 100, California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases, leginfo.legislature. ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient. xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100 13 Chris Megerian, California clean energy proposals face demise as opposition fails to yield, Los Angeles Times (Sept. 14, 2017) www. latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-californiaclean-energy-stall-20170914-story.html
1 8 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL
California Energy Commission, AB 2514 – Energy Storage Procurement Targets from Publicly Owned Utilities, www.energy. ca.gov/assessments/ab2514_energy_storage. html
14
15
Id.
California Energy Commission, AB 2514 – Publicly Owned Utility Reports www.energy. ca.gov/assessments/ab2514_energy_storage. html#poureports
16
17
Id.
California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Storage: Current Proceeding www. cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=3462
18
19 California Public Utilities Commission, Decision 16-09-007, Decision Approving Storage Procurement Framework for the 2016 Biennial Procurement Period docs. cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/ G000/M167/K220/167220973.PDF 20 California Public Utilities Commission, Annual Report 2016, www.cpuc.ca.gov/ uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/ Content/About_Us/Annual_ Reports/2016%20Annual%20Report.pdf
California Public Utilities Commission Rulemaking 15-03-011 was updated March 21, 2017 to reflect a proposal to modify the decision in light of the implementation process for AB 2868. See docs.cpuc. ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M182/ K362/182362971.PDF
21
California Energy Commission, Eligibility Criteria and Conditions for Solar Energy System Incentives (Senate Bill 1) www.energy. ca.gov/sb1/
22
Senate Bill 1332, An act to amend and renumber Section 387.6 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to energy leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient. xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB133
23
“Eligible renewable power” facilities are defined in AB 762, which incorporates by reference Section 25741 of the California Resources Code, to include facilities using biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal or tidal current technologies. leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient. xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB762
24
California Public Utilities Commission, Feed In Tariff, www.cpuc.ca.gov/feedintariff/
25
Funding is appropriated for the rebate project each year in the State Budget. Funding for 2016-17 will be exhausted before the 2017-18 funds will be appropriated and allocated to the project. See cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng
26
PERSPECTIVES
The proposals were submitted to the CPUC in January 2017 and would allow the IOUs to collect about $1 billion more in their rates in order to finance the initiatives. See Fred Lambert, Electric utilities are seeking to expand electric vehicle infrastructure with 10,000+ new charging stations in California, electrck ( Jan. 23, 2017) electrek.co/2017/01/23/ electric-utilities-expand-electric-vehicleinfrastructure-charging-stations-california/
27
28 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2016 Briefing Book, p. 16.
California Energy Commission, Legislative Requirements for Energy Efficiency Savings www.energy.ca.gov/pou_reporting/ background/legislative_requirements.html (discussing the various laws that have created these mandates over the years, including SB 1037 from 2005, AB 2021 from 2006, SB 488 from 2009 and AB 2227 from 2012)
29
30
Id.
2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/ CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015037-CMF.pdf
31
32
Id. at Section 100.0
Additionally, there will be a net reduction in nitrous oxide emissions by about 508 tons per year, sulfur oxides by 13 tons per year, carbon monoxide by 41 tons per year, and PM2.5 by 13.75 tons per year. California Energy Commission, Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration for the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Staff Report, (Feb. 2015) www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/ CEC-400-2015-012/CEC-400-2015-012.pdf
33
2016 Guide to the 2016 California Green Building Standards: Residential, codes. iccsafe.org/public/chapter/content/2504/ 34
35
Id. at Chapter 1
36
Id.
California Building Standards Commission, CALGreen Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, www. documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/EDUCATIONOUTREACH/2016_Events/GreenSummitEV-BSC-HCD-04-22-16.pdf 37
38 See Jake Richardson, First Zero Net Energy Community In California Announced, Clean Technica (April 28, 2015) cleantechnica. com/2015/04/28/first-zero-net-energycommunity-california-announced/ See also Kerry A. Dolan, Largest U.S. ‘Zero Net Energy’ Community Opens In California At UC Davis, Forbes (Oct. 14, 2011) www.forbes.com/sites/ kerryadolan/2011/10/14/largest-u-s-zero-netenergy-community-opens-in-california-atuc-davis/#f522d136ad94 39 Andrew Meyer, California’s SGIP is Bringing Net-Zero Homes into the Mainstream, Swell Energy (Feb. 16, 2016) www.swellenergy.com/blog/2016/02/16/ california-s-sgip-is-bringing-net-zerohomes-into-the-mainstream 40 These efforts resulted in the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action, “NAZCA,” which is a global platform that brings together the commitments to action by companies, cities, sub-national regions, investors and civil society organizations to address climate change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ‘NAZCA’ climateaction.unfccc.int 41
We Are Still In, wearestillin.com/
America’s Pledge on Climate, www. americaspledgeonclimate.com/ 42
Lisa Friedman, Jerry Brown Announces a Climate Summit Meeting in California, New York Times ( July 6, 2017) www.nytimes. com/2017/07/06/climate/jerry-browncalifornia-climate-summit.html?_r=0
43
44 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross domestic product (GDP) by state (millions of current dollars) www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?req id=70&step=10&isuri=1&7003=200&7035=1&7004=sic&7005=1&7006=xx&7036=1&7001=1200&7002=1&7090=70&7007=1&7093=levels#reqid=70&step=10&i suri=1&7003=200&7004=naics&7035=1&7005=1&7006=xx&7001=1200&7036=1&7002=1&7090=70&7007=-1&7093=levels 45 State of California Senate, SB 350 Myths and Facts, focus.senate.ca.gov/climate/ sb350-facts 46
Id.
See Matthew A. Winkler, California Leads U.S. Economy, Away From Trump, Bloomberg (May 10, 2017) www.bloomberg.com/view/ articles/2017-05-10/california-leads-u-seconomy-away-from-trump 47
Dan Walters, California still has nation’s largest manufacturing sector, The Sacramento Bee ( Jan. 27, 2015) www.sacbee.com/ news/politics-government/capitol-alert/ article8334159.html
48
National Association of Manufacturers, State Manufacturing Data, www.nam.org/ Data-and-Reports/State-ManufacturingData/
49
50
Supra note 46
One resource for this is the Digital Environmental Legislative Handbook: A Curated List of Environmental Laws That Both Protect The Environment and Support Economic and Job Growth from the University of Southern California Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy and the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. Twelve of the seventeen bills on Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy are from California. See envirolaws.org/category/energy n 51
Energy Program Advisory Board Members Diane Munns Clean Energy Collaborative, Environmental Defense Fund
Chairman Charles A. Berardesco, JD ‘83 North American Electric Reliability Corp.
Douglas E. Davidson, JD ‘71
Noel W. Black Southern Company
Kevin C. Fitzgerald, JD ‘91 Energy Impact Partners
George “Chip” D. Cannon, Jr., JD ‘94 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Emma F. Hand Dentons US LLP
Daniel J. Oginsky, JD ‘99 ITC Holdings Corp.
Todd Mullins, JD ‘89 McGuire Woods
Daniel F. Stenger, JD ‘80 Hogan Lovells US LLP
David J. Dulick, JD ‘78 Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.
J. Andrew “Drew” Murphy, JD ‘87 Edison International Earle H. O’Donnell, JD ‘75
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY LAW PERSPECTIVES 1 9
Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program 2000 H Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20052
FIRST CLASS U.S. Postage PAID Washington, D.C. Permit #593
NEWS
Competitions from page 1
Moot Court, sponsored by the West Virginia University College of Law in Morgantown, West Virginia, demonstrated endurance as well as exceptional talent. Their case addressed a fictional plan from the state of “Franklin” that was intended to prop up the price of coalfired generation and encourage the use of locally harvested biomass, a variant of the preemption and dormant commerce clause issues that have been proliferating in the energy sector in recent years. Twenty teams participated in this year’s arguments. The GW Law Class of 2018 team of Elizabeth LoPresti, Kathryn Penry, and Joshua Robichaud won Best Brief and, after eight rounds of argument, made it into the ninth and final round, finishing second to the team from the University of North Carolina. The final round was presided over by Judge Stephanie D. Thacker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Judge Frank Volk,
Bankruptcy Judge, Southern District of West Virginia; Judge David Faber, Senior Judge, Southern District of West Virginia; and Judge Michael P. Aloi, Magistrate Judge, Northern District of West Virginia. A video of the competition is available at www.youtube.com/ watch?v=sxydqZpSCxc. The Class of 2017 team of Anthony Melon, Carrie Mobley, and Kyrstin Wallach reached the quarterfinals (sixth round of arguments in two days). Both teams were coached by attorneys Andrew Corcoran and John Shepherd, Jr., of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom with additional assistance from last year’s participants in this competition, Garrett Henderson and Jason Ross. Skadden also generously funded GW Law’s participation in the competition. n
Joshua Robichaud, Elizabeth LoPresti, and Kathryn Penry (left to right) accepting their award after the final round.
Madeleine Skaller (left) and Taylor Morosco (right) with their coach, Assistant Dean of Students Robin Juni.