On January 6th, the White House Council of Environmental Quality ("CEQ") released a new Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ("the Guidance") in permitting decisions, with significant implications for energy and infrastructure projects. Though this Guidance is effective as of the date of publication, it was issued on an interim basis and CEQ will consider comments until March 10th, after which it could be revised further.
CEQ's recommendations will influence the Biden Administration's analysis of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions in environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), applying immediately to all newly proposed actions as well as some on-going NEPA reviews. While the Guidance is largely framed as a series of recommendations rather than requirements, it highlights best practices for environmental reviews that could help expedite project completions, improve agency decision making, and minimize litigation risks for developers.万博体育app手机登录归根结底,CEQ正努力确保机构和项目开发商充分关注气候影响,不无端延迟机构决策,特别是考虑到加速清洁能源基础设施是Biden爱慕气候议程的一个关键部分。
指南力求加深理解温室气体影响和替代物取舍,从而提高对联邦温室气体分析质量的期望。 项目开发商希望与联邦监管商密切合作,确保NEPA机构审查的充足性。万博体育app手机登录失败可能为项目反对者提供诉讼路径 。
Below万博体育app手机登录Encouraging Consistency in Agency Analysis of GHGs
CEQ's Guidance builds upon an earlier 2016 policy document, and is the latest in a series of efforts aimed at enhancing certainty in agency GHG analysis.[1] This Obama-era 2016 guidance was revoked and replaced by the Trump Administration,[2] and then ultimately reinstated by the Biden Administration in early 2021.[3] In the interim, court decisions have required some kind of analysis of project climate impacts under NEPA, without articulating clear generally applicable guidelines as to what level of review would be sufficient, thus resulting in uncertainty.[4]
CEQ is encouraging more certainty in addressing GHG consequences, while acknowledging that any such analysis must be conducted in a measured, proportional, yet thorough manner.CEQ实现这一点的主要方式是建议机构量化并联系相关温室气体影响
A万博体育app手机登录Quantifying GHG Emissions and Reductions
CEQ recommends agencies first quantify all reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions and reductions of a proposed action, any reasonable alternatives, and a no action alternative. In doing so, CEQ recognizes the unique nature of the climate emissions challenge, where the effects arise from a wide range of emissions activities. It thus notes, "NEPA requires more than a statement that emissions from a proposed Federal action or its alternatives represent only a small fraction of global or domestic emissions."[5] In other words, an agency is not absolved from analyzing GHG emissions because no single agency action has the ability to mitigate climate change on its own. Instead, an agency must recognize that adequate reforms will occur incrementally, and therefore analyze the emissions impacts of significant federal actions that contribute to, or remediate, climate impacts.[6] To do so, CEQ directs agencies to use tools that are commonly deployed by the private sector and government to quantify emissions.[7]
Using these tools, emissions increases and reductions should be quantified individually by constituent greenhouse gases, as well as aggregated in terms of total carbon dioxide equivalency. Additionally, where feasible, agencies are encouraged to represent the proposed action's annual emissions or reductions, especially when those emissions might vary over the life of the project.[8]
CEQ further instructs that agencies evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative emissions as part of their environmental review. Among other things, CEQ notes that quantifying direct and indirect emissions "is generally essential to reasoned decision making."[9] Cumulative emissions are critical to consider given the nature of the climate problem, where detrimental effects flow from the accumulation of historic GHGs. Consideration of cumulative effects can be accomplished by summarizing and citing to the relevant scientific literature, as well as monetizing and contextualizing emissions as noted in the following section.[10]
Analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative emissions is likely to be one of the most challenging aspects of CEQ's guidance to implement, and similar recommendations have already been the source of some controversy. For instance, in February 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a policy statement stating that for gas pipeline approvals FERC would review "GHG emissions that are reasonably foreseeable" including those resulting from upstream impacts—such as those tied to construction and operation of the project—and downstream impacts—such as emissions resulting from the combustion of transported gas.[11] Barely a month later, FERC re-designated this policy statement as a draft and invited additional comments after it garnered significant industry and political criticism.
CEQ attempts to tamp down such controversy by making clear that any analysis of GHGs should be bounded by principles of proportionality. They caution against "an in-depth analysis of emissions regardless of the insignificance of the quantity of GHG emissions that the proposed action would cause."[12] For example, "the relative minor and short-term GHG emissions associated with construction of certain renewable energy projects, such as utility-scale solar and offshore wind, should not warrant a detailed analysis of lifetime GHG emissions."[13] In order to further enhance efficiency and avoid duplicative efforts, CEQ expects that agencies will rely on and incorporate scientific and technical information on impacts from other, more expert, agencies, as well as international organizations and academic literature.[14]
B.Monetize and Contextualize GHG Emissions
Agencies should contextualize GHGs associated with a project after quantifying them. This can include monetizing climate damages using the "best available estimates" of the social cost of GHG ("SC-GHG") and placing emissions in the context of relevant climate goals and commitments.
The best available SC-GHG figure is currently in flux. Two years ago, the Biden Administration reconstituted an Interagency Working Group (IWG) on the SC-GHG, which issued an interim estimate of the SC-GHG in the spring of 2021. As detailed in a prior blog post, that estimate has been the subject of litigation and the IWG has yet to issue a final SC-GHG. More recently, EPA issued a regulatory document in the fall of 2022, which previewed a much higher SC-GHG than contemplated in the IWG's interim estimate.[15]
CEQ nonetheless notes that "in most circumstances" agencies should use the SC-GHG to analyze a proposed action and its alternatives. In doing so, the SC-GHG will empower agencies to make clearer comparisons of the GHG impacts of each action.[16] Monetizing emissions is particularly useful if: (a) the NEPA review monetizes other costs and benefits from the proposed action!替代物在不同时间或温室气体排放类型上有差异and (c) the significance of the climate impacts are hard to assess or not readily apparent without monetization.[17] Any such SC-GHG should be global in nature and utilize a discount rate that accurately reflects the harms climate change inflicts on future generations.[18]
Despite encouraging the monetization of GHG impacts, CEQ clearly states that "NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis where all monetized benefits and costs are directly compared." Utilizing SC-GHG to estimate the societal cost of GHG emissions does not create a requirement to do so.[19] However, if an agency considers a formal cost-benefit analysis appropriate, it is not prohibited from including or appending this analysis to its NEPA documents.
For any actions "with relatively large GHG emissions or reductions" or that "perpetuate reliance on GHG-emitting energy sources"—such as fossil fuels—agencies should explain how the proposed action and its alternatives would meet or detract from broader climate goals and commitments, such as federal or state goals or international agreements.[20] For example, agencies could discuss how the actions align with the U.S.机构应考虑使用更多语法或无障碍方法描述温室气体排放量,其中一些例子可包括使用“familiar度量法,例如家用每年排放量、公路上一定数车或加仑燃烧汽油平均量值”。 CEQ is also using this Guidance to encourage agencies to take actions that lower GHG emissions by building such considerations into the process. This underlines CEQ's desire to align government decision making with the Biden Administration's net-zero ambitions. Embedded in this approach is the hope that a more complete consideration of GHG impacts will lead to more climate-positive decision-making, even though NEPA does not require agencies to opt for the most environmentally friendly alternative.[22] CEQ provides advice on how to consider reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that might address short- and long-term climate change effects, with the aim of promoting emission mitigations.[23] CEQ notes that agencies should also acknowledge the impacts of climate change on the proposed action (not just the impact of the proposed action on the climate) and embed considerations of climate adaptation and resilience into the formulation of the proposed action and alternatives.[24] CEQ also recommends evaluating reasonable alternatives that have lower GHG emissions, including technically and economically feasible clean energy alternatives to proposed fossil-fuel projects.[25] CEQ notes how "[s]ome proposed actions, such as those increasing the supply of certain energy resources like oil, natural gas, or renewable energy generation, may result in changes to the resulting energy mix as energy resources substitute for one another on the domestic or global energy market." CEQ encourages agencies to conduct a "substitution analysis" to understand how any energy project proposals will affect the resulting energy mix and GHG emissions. When doing this analysis, agencies should not assume that if any project does not go forward it will be replaced by one that generates identical emissions, such that net emissions relative to a baseline are zero.[26] Instead, agencies should conduct modeling that "accurately account[s] for reasonable and available energy substitute resources, including renewable energy."[27] By encouraging the consideration of renewable energy alternatives to fossil fuel infrastructure early in the NEPA process, CEQ is pushing agencies to prioritize permitting cleaner forms of energy, consistent with the Administration's broader climate policy goals. CEQ鼓励前方社区参赛,重点是考虑环境公义对温室气体排放的影响万博体育app手机登录One of the most effective ways to accomplish this, according to CEQ, is to leverage early planning processes to integrate GHG emissions and climate change considerations into the identification of alternatives to the proposed action, as well as any reasonable mitigation efforts. CEQ recommends that agencies use the scoping process to identify potentially affected communities and provide early notice of opportunities for public engagement, which is especially important "for communities of color and low-income communities, including those who have suffered disproportionate public health or environmental harms and those who are at increased risk for climate change-related harms."[28] Community engagement should begin in the scoping process and should recognize any unique climate-related risks and concerns posed by the proposed action. For example, CEQ discusses how "chemical facilities located near the coastline could have increased risk of spills or leaks due to sea level rise or increased storm surges, putting local communities and environmental resources at greater risk."[29] In these types of scenarios, agencies should meaningfully engage with affected communities in designing the action and selecting alternatives, "including alternatives that can reduce disproportionate effects on such communities."[30] Such early project engagement, before the contours of a project are fully fixed, can assist in improving project outcomes and building greater community-level support for a project. We will continue monitoring developments pertinent to NEPA reviews of energy and infrastructure projects in the coming months, including CEQ's final guidance on GHG analysis expected in March, and other efforts by the Biden Administration and Congress to reform federal permitting processes. [1] CEQ, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, 81 FR 51866 (Aug.万博体育app手机登录2016年4月5日CEQ撤销2016年最终指南。CEQ撤销联邦各部门和机构在国家环境政策法评审中审议温室气体排放和气候变化影响最终指南,III.Up-Front社区参与环境公义
[7] Guidance at 1201-1202. CEQ keeps a list of these tools on their website. See CEQ, GHG Tools and Resources, https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ghg-tools-and-resources.html.
[8] Id. at 1201.
[9] Id. at 1205.
[10] Id. at 1206.
[11] FERC, Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Natural Gas Infrastructure Project Reviews, Docket No.万博体育app手机登录PL21-3-000, February 18, 2022.
[12] Guidance at 1201.
[13] Id.
[14] For instance, CEQ notes that "agencies may summarize and incorporate by reference the relevant chapters of the most recent national climate assessments or reports from the USGCRP and the IPCC" and encourages them to "engage other agencies and stakeholders with knowledge of related actions to participate in the scoping process to identify relevant GHG and adaptation analyses from other actions or programmatic NEPA documents." Guidance at 1208, 1210.
[15] Specifically, the February 2021 IWG estimates places the social cost of carbon at $51/ton, while the EPA in the fall of 2022 estimated the social cost of carbon at $190/ton. This larger estimate was derived in part by using lower discount rates.万博体育app手机登录See Supplementary Material for the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Supplemental Proposed Rulemaking, "Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review," EPA External Review Draft of Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317 (September 2022).
[16] Guidance at 1202.
[17] Id.
[18] CEQ further notes that in utilizing a SC-GHG, agencies should keep in mind that currently available estimates "may be conservative underestimates because various damage categories (like ocean acidification) are not currently included." Id. at 1203.
[19] Id. at 1211.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] CEQ itself recognizes that "[n]either NEPA, the CEQ Regulations, or this guidance require the decision maker to select the alternative with the lowest net GHG emissions or climate costs or the greatest net climate benefits." Id. at 1204.
[23] Id. at 1203.
[24] Id. at 1208-1209.
[25] Id.1205 id>#em>
In a series of prior blog posts, we previously highlighted the historic implications of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for the U.S.'s international climate commitments, as well as for private companies navigating the energy transition. Shortly after our series published, the Senate passed the IRA on Sunday August 7th with only minor modifications to the bill's $369 billion in climate and clean energy spending. Today, the House passed the IRA without any further changes, and soon hereafter President Biden is expected to sign it into law.
However, this is only the beginning of the road!IRA四角将产生广度效果。 未来数月和数年中,我们期望看到对机构规则的强力操纵将决定IRA实施,并判定它作为能源策略的最终成功
As an initial matter, it seems Congress has not finished its work revamping the nation's climate and energy laws. As part of his agreement to support the IRA, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced that "President Biden, Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi have committed to advancing a suite of commonsense permitting reforms this fall that will ensure all energy infrastructure, from transmission to pipelines and export facilities, can be efficiently and responsibly built to deliver energy safely around the country and to our allies." While the exact contours of this legislation are not currently known, Senator Manchin's office recently released a legislative framework, which includes proposals to, among other things:
- tighten environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
- clarify the permitting and regulatory authorities of the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
- reform Clean Water Act provisions that allow state and local governments to impose additional requirements on federal permits!and
- create a list of strategically important energy projects, that the President can designate and periodically update, for streamlined permitting reviews.
According to Senator Manchin's office, permitting reform will receive a vote before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2022. Unlike the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed through arcane rules of reconciliation—and thus required only a simple majority—permitting reform will be subject to the Senate filibuster and require the support of at least 60 senators (and bipartisan agreement) to become law. At the moment, it is unclear whether broad bipartisan support exists for this measure!some Republicans have publicly signaled skepticism, and environmental activists have long opposed expedited fossil fuel permitting.However, in the past Republican Senators have expressed an interest in speeding the nation's permitting system. During this Congress, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced a law to accelerate infrastructure permitting, and all Republicans and Senator Manchin supported a resolution to disapprove of recent revisions to NEPA. Together, these actions suggest there may be some interest within the Republican caucus in implementing meaningful changes to current law, partisan divisions notwithstanding.
II.万博体育app手机登录减通货膨胀法关键赋值指南 外加,IRA本身有几部分未来数月将通过行政引导和规则制定过程予以澄清和实施守法标准支付工资、学徒和家用内容要求并计算温室气体排放法新税抵免 。
ahrfss/www.insideEnergyandense.com/2022/07/enger-support-for-电机-车-车-车-门-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电-电链/>这些规定并不适用于商业电车信用分量 。 具体地说,法律要求电电池组件的一定比例为“制造或组装北美 ”, 并适用百分比逐年变化 。 法律还要求电池中关键矿产品中一定比例为“提取或处理 ”, 在美国或与美国相邻的任何国家中实现“提取或处理 ” 。IRA § 13401(e).鉴于电车供应链的现状,预计许多汽车制造商难以满足这些外包需求万博体育app手机登录
However, key features of these clean vehicle credits have yet to take shape. By the end of this year, the IRA requires the Treasury Department to issue regulatory guidance to help shape and administer the battery and mineral sourcing requirements. Id. Among the questions open for interpretation are acceptable methods for calculating the "percentage of the value" for critical mineral and battery components, as well as better defining the terms "manufacture or assembly" and "extraction or processing." How Treasury addresses these points will have significant ramifications for the short- and medium- term value of the clean vehicle credits.
A much broader set of IRA tax credits seek to promote investment in, and use of, clean electricity, but their value depends on the interpretation of key labor and domestic content requirements. As currently structured, the IRA extends and modifies the Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credits that apply to certain renewable sources of power through the end of 2024. Id. §§ 13101, 13102. Beginning in 2025, similar projects will also be eligible for a new technology-neutral Clean Electricity Production Credit and a Clean Electricity Investment Credit, which apply to any domestically produced electricity source with a greenhouse gas emissions rate of zero. Id. §§ 13701, 13702. These credits, and others throughout the IRA, are keyed to the satisfaction of prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.
Specifically, if these wage and apprenticeship requirements are not satisfied the credits are worth five times less than they otherwise would be. Additionally, the IRA creates a 10% "domestic content bonus" when facilities certify that certain percentages of steel, iron, and other manufactured products used in the facility are made in America, and further increases the value of the credit for projects located in "energy communities," i.e.棕田网站或经济困境前化石燃料生产网站解释应用将极大影响政府可用支持值。 未来清洁能源项目必须注意确保适当文档并遵守这些条款Finally, many IRA tax credits are pegged to a demonstration of the life-cycle emissions of the underlying facility or fuel. For instance, the value of the clean hydrogen credit varies based on the project's "lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions rate." On the high end, a 100% credit value is awarded to projects with a lifecycle emissions rate of less than .45 kilograms (kgs) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), but on the low end, projects only receive 20% of the credit value if their emissions rate is between 4 and 2.5 kgs of CO2e. Id. § 13204. Additionally, the availability of the new credit for sustainable aviation fuels depends on a certification that the applicable fuels achieve at least a 50% life cycle greenhouse gas reduction percentage compared to petroleum-based jet fuel!燃料项目再为生命周期温室气体排放量增量百分比增量增益Id.
The full implications of the IRA are yet to be understood. The law is likely to have significant implications for our energy future, leading to sharp growth in the nation's clean energy production and a decline in national greenhouse gas emissions. Though we have laid out some initial consequences, there are undoubtedly many more interpretive questions that will arise in the coming weeks, months, and years. Additionally, by subsidizing and lowering the costs of clean electricity and other low-emissions technology, the IRA could improve the benefit-cost analysis for a variety of environmental regulations, leading to more stringent and durable rules. Further, by bolstering the domestic energy industry, the IRA could alter the political economy of climate policy, creating a broader base of support for future government investments in clean energy production or greenhouse gas curtailment. Regardless of how this future unfolds, it will surely be a dynamic time for energy and environmental law and policy.