CIVIL NOTION
  • Home
  • Climate Politics
  • Zero Net Fifty
  • ABOUT
  • Home
  • Climate Politics
  • Zero Net Fifty
  • ABOUT
Picture

When 2 Won’t Do: Can a Viable Green (Lite) Party Emerge From the Ooze?

7/24/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
                         When the branches of government no longer function as constitutionally intended, the bough of democracy threatens to break.

Partisan Politics: My Party Right or Wrong

 
The 2016 presidential election and the period following will undoubtedly be remembered as a watershed in American politics. It is too early to tell just how the election and its aftermath will be recalled by historians; its consequences are still unfurling and likely to continue doing so through the next presidential election cycle in 2020.

It is never too early, however, for the clean energy and climate defending communities to begin thinking seriously in terms of what comes next. Will the molds broken in 2016 be recast as they were, or will the anger, division and disgruntlement continue in 2020 and beyond?

Will the next nominees for president and Congress be consummate outsiders or will establishment politicians be re-established? Can either of the two major political parties be counted on to halt the damage done by Trump and company to the environment—to say nothing of reinstating needed protections and making up for the time already lost in transitioning to a low-carbon future?
​

Six months into his presidency, it is clear the chaos of the campaign has accompanied The Donald into the Oval Office. It is likely chaos will rule longer than Trump himself. 

Read More
0 Comments

CLEAN ENERGY IN THE AGE OF TRUMP MEANS FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE CLEAN ENERGY INCENTIVES

7/16/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture

The most potent weapon in the Trump administration’s arsenal for defeating efforts to combat climate change and slowing the adoption of solar, wind and other low-carbon energy sources is one rarely spoken of: federal preemption of state-based incentives and policies like Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS).
 
​Preemption, in lay terms, is the game of rock, paper scissors. In the abstract, it makes for interesting, if not always civil, discourse.
 
The harsh reality, however, is it may be the only efficacious way for Trumptefarians to make good on their promises of rolling back environmental regulation and restoring the coal and nuclear industries to more halcyon days.
 
Telltale signs of a possible preemptive strike on state clean energy and climate protection policies are hiding in plain sight. Can Pruitt’s promise to continue California’s auto emissions waiver be trusted? A more strident requirement in the Sunshine State and its 14 allied partners could well mean a defacto national standard higher than what the Administration and the auto industry would prefer.


Then there is Secretary of Energy Perry’s grid reliability study. Might the recommendation be to keep uneconomic coal and nuclear fired generating units on-line as matters of NATIONAL interest? Will the Final released version include the conclusion in the leaked Draft document  that the grid is more stable today than ever before?

​In the following paragraphs, I address what I see as the growing possibility the Trump administration will move against state clean energy programs invoking Constitutional claims of national security and interstate commerce. This is the first time I address this issue; it will not the last.


Read More
0 Comments

PRUITT SAYS "STAY," THE COURT SAYS "GO:" METHANE REGULATION IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

7/10/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
Much of what the White House claims to have accomplished in the first 170 days 19 hour 03 minutes and 12 seconds* since Trump was sworn into office--by both supporters and opponents—is only partially correct. Not necessarily because the claims of executive action are untrue, but because many are subject to judicial review and cannot be counted as having been completed until the courts rule.

Hardly record-setting for the number issued--Presidents FDR and Truman far exceeded The Donald’s pace of papering over the federal government early in their administrations—the Trump White House leads the pack in number of executive orders struck down by the courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently added to the string of struck federal executive actions when it overruled an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to delay Obama-era methane regula-tions, rejecting claims by the EPA that the oil and gas industry wasn't allowed to comment on the rules.

The decision is important in and of itself, of course, but it also offers possible insights into what the judicial fate of other administration efforts to rollback Obama-era environmental regulations might be, including: Corporate Average Fuel Economies (CAFE), the Clean Power Plan (CPP), the Waters of the U.S. regulations (WOTUS) and a growing host of others.
​
Some of the rollback attempts, e.g. CPP and WOTUS, are deliberately named in one or another executive directive. Others are implied under the March 28, 2017 action headed the Energy Independence Executive Order. 

Read More
0 Comments

The Fate of the Clean Power Plan In The Age Of Trump: Going But Not Yet Gone.

7/5/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
If the revision of CAFE standards serves as an opportunity for the Trump regime to preempt state authorities, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) represents an opportunity to render unto the states what the administration would like them to be responsible for—or perhaps what they don’t want the federal government to bear the responsibility of.
 
The CPP was the intended path by which the Obama administration was to achieve the promised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to global decarbonization as part of the Paris Accord. Although finalized late in President Obama’s second-term, the legal groundwork was laid during the G.W. Bush administration.

W’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from car tailpipes led to the decision in Massachusetts v EPA. As discussed throughout, the case established EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) it determined were contributing factors to global warming. The 5 to 4 decision further established such regulation as obligatory, if the Agency also determined that global warming/ climate change was indeed harmful to human life and the welfare of the planet.

Justice Stevens writing for the majority included such phrases in the opinion as:

          The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. 

          EPA overstates its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that it cannot be
          ha[u]led into federal court,
and that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy petitioners’
          injuries, especially since predicted increases i
n emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will likely offset any marginal domestic
          decrease EPA regulation could bring about.

 
          While regulating motor-vehicle emissions may not by itself reverse global warming, it does not follow that the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide
          whether EPA has a duty to
take steps to slow or reduce it. (emphasis mine)
 
          Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,”EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission
          of such gases from new motor vehicles.
That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent …, including any physical, chemical,
          … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,”
§7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover,
          carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance[s].
 
          EPA’s reliance on post enactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse
          gas emissions is unavailing. 
(emphasis mine)

The case led directly to EPA’s subsequent endangerment finding.  Finalized on Pearl Harbor Day 2009, it gave President Obama the needed legal basis to order EPA to regulate power plant emissions—principally CO2--pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The regulation is now generally referred to as the Clean Power Plan. The Plan was a cornerstone of the larger Obama Climate Action Plan that endeavored to combat global warming on multiple fronts, e.g. stringent CAFE standards, promoting American leadership in clean energy, boosting the resilience of buildings and infrastructure to natural disasters, etc.

Read More
0 Comments

MR. PRESIDENT

7/1/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

    Joel B. Stronberg

    Joel Stronberg, MA, JD., of The JBS Group is a veteran clean energy policy analyst with over 30 years’ experience, based in Washington, DC.

    Archives

    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly