Worldwide: Climate Change Newsletter - Issue 7

Welcome to the Dentons' Climate Change Newsletter. Combining our regional practices from around the world, we intend in upcoming newsletters to provide short articles from several of our offices to present an overview of current developments globally in the climate change space. Please do not hesitate to reach out to any of these authors, to any member of the Environment and Natural Resources practice or to our Energy group for information on these or other topics of interest.


By Jeffrey Fort and Susan Wood

Readers of this newsletter have no doubt already read or heard about the UN Climate Conference which concluded two days later than scheduled, early on Sunday, December 13, 2014. Rather than repeat, we wish to call to your attention a few key take-aways from this 20th Conference of the Parties (COP).

  1. This COP was designed to establish a framework for a new global agreement (something less than a treaty) to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Some would say the Lima COP met that expectation, but there are still very many issues to be negotiated and resolved by the Paris COP in December 2015.
  2. The US – China agreement (discussed below) became the model for one of the key agreements reached. Each country is expected to set forth what it can do to help the globe stay within the 2°C increase which is the scientific consensus for the maximum tolerable increase in global temperatures to maintain the current climate conditions (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions). The goals become a bottom-up approach augmented by public perception. It leaves the decision on "how much" and "how to" to each country.
  3. A draft negotiating text for the expected 2015 agreement was finalized, but the negations are just beginning.
  4. Many were disappointed that the avoided deforestation topic (REDD+) did not proceed further, after strong commitments from the Warsaw COP. A key issue remains in how to involve private capital in this effort, a topic covered by a side event which Dentons sponsored (see below).
  5. A new financing device, the Green Climate Fund, received substantial commitments from several developed countries, totaling over US$10 billion. This GCF is a tool for the financing of developing countries for clean energy and climate protection measures using resources of developed countries. The split of countries into Annex I and "other" countries is receding but moving into debates on financing of development projects. The terms and governance for this GCF are in early stage.

In this context, Dentons sponsored two "side events" in the delegate space with the International Emission Trading Association. Jeffrey Fort (Chicago) and Susan Wood (Houston) presented.

Cambodia carbon credits

The use and need for REDD+ projects was featured in many discussions and side events at this COP. The Oddar Meanchey (Cambodia) project has earned not only REDD and CCSB recognitions (including double gold validation), it captured the attention of The American Lawyer, a magazine focused on the global legal business. As noted in our last newsletter, Dentons was honored as "Citizen of the Year" for its pro bono work for the Forestry Administration of Cambodia.

This project provides several instructions on the measures needed to take a bottom up project, which the national government then captured and focused onto a single province, and create a tool for bringing those credits to verification and to a private CSR market, as well as to government buyers. Begun several years ago, it is an exemplar of initiatives and collaboration among private and public sectors.

Offset for taxes and fees

Offsets are not simply for cap-and-trade systems. Offsets are growing in variety and utility for emissions reductions. They are also increasingly being used (or considered) by national and sub-national governments who are implementing a range of market mechanisms to tackle climate and reach greenhouse gas targets. This session featured speakers covering six jurisdictions who are using or preparing to use carbon offsets under non cap-and-trade programs worldwide: three Canadian provinces, South Africa, Mexico and the Ukraine. The outlook from this panel would suggest that the certainty of carbon pricing with a sensibly set fee or tax had many benefits, including taking advantage of non-regulated activities to produce more cost-effective reductions than simply an added cost on covered sectors. These "hybrid" market approaches to reducing emissions and nurturing market links and entrepreneurs may become more common in the near term.


By Helen Bowdren

In Europe, discussions continue in relation to structural reform of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The EU ETS has a growing surplus of carbon credits, estimated at over 2 billion allowances. This has led to a collapse in carbon prices, and reduced incentive on participants to reduce emissions. The European Commission has proposed two measures to address this:


As a short-term measure, the Commission is postponing the auctioning of 900 million allowances until 2019-2020 to allow demand to pick up. This "backloading" of auctions is being implemented through an amendment to the EU ETS Auctioning Regulation. Back-loading does not reduce the overall number of allowances to be auctioned during phase 3, only the distribution of auctions over the period. In 2014 the auction volume will be reduced by 400 million allowances, in 2015 by 300 million and in 2016 by 200 million.

Proposal for market stability reserve

As a more long-term solution, the Commission proposes to also establish a market stability reserve (MSR) at the beginning of the next trading period in 2021. The MSR will reduce the amount of EU Allowance Units (EUAs) that are auctioned if an upper threshold of EUAs in circulation is exceeded and releases them if the EUAs in circulation fall short of a lower threshold. The change in auctioning volume is triggered by the volume of banked credits, not by credit prices. The Commission put forward a proposal in January 2014. Both the European parliament and the EU Council, representing the EU 28 national governments, have to agree a common text before the proposal can become binding. Not all EU Member States are in favor of the MSR, either in its proposed form or at all.

The UK Government supports the introduction of an MSR and calls for:

  • Implementation by 2017, to urgently address the surplus.
  • Backloaded allowances to be cancelled and/or enhancement of the proposed mechanism to smooth auction volumes so that backloaded allowances are placed directly into the reserve.
  • Amendments to ensure allowances are retained in the reserve under "business as usual circumstances" and therefore remain available to provide protection against insufficient liquidity and prices rising too quickly should these occur in the future.


By Alex MacWilliam

In the absence of recent activity at the federal government level, Canadian provinces continue to take the lead on climate change initiatives. In late November, Canada's two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec, issued a Memorandum of Understanding in which they agreed to collaborate on "concerted climate change actions" said to include harmonizing data collection and GHG reporting requirements, exploring the use of market based mechanisms in Ontario, sharing knowledge and promoting the transition to a low carbon economy through initiatives such as setting a price on carbon and adopting cleaner fuel standards. The MOU also says the two provinces will strengthen joint efforts to increase collaboration with the government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments. The MOU specifically states that it does not create legally binding obligations on Ontario and Quebec and it may be terminated by either province on two months' notice.

In early December, on the eve of the COP20 negotiations in Lima, the governments of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, together with the government of California, United States issued a "Joint Statement on Climate Change" in which they stated they will collaborate on mid-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions to maintain momentum toward 2050 targets. Ontario also announced that this year it will release a comprehensive action plan to reduce emissions.

Meanwhile in Alberta, the government has just extended the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation to the end of June 2015. The regulation has been in place since 2007 and provides the framework for requiring the reduction of GHG emissions intensity levels from large industrial emitters. In addition to being necessary to maintain the regulatory framework, the extension was said to "ensure the smooth transition from the current strategy to the new framework expected be in place in the new year". Alberta says it is currently "exploring options to address climate change". No indications have been given as to what those options include.


By Matthew Adams

The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has proposed guidance to federal agencies regarding agency analyses of climate change under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The guidance replaces a prior draft that was issued in 2010 but never finalized.

NEPA mandates that federal agencies identify, evaluate and disclose to the public the environmental consequences of their proposed actions and consider reasonable alternatives thereto. The Act applies to virtually all discretionary federal decision-making — everything from general federal land management planning processes to the permitting of specific private energy generation and transmission projects.

Federal agencies are legally responsible for compliance with NEPA. But, as a practical matter, the Act's compliance costs and litigation risks are frequently borne by private project developers who have applied for federal permits.

For example, earlier this year the United States District Court for the District of Colorado invalidated a pair of mining lease approvals granted to private developers because the relevant federal agencies (there, the United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) had failed properly to address climate change issues in their NEPA documents (High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service, D. Col. Case No. 13-cv-1723).

The proposed guidance attempts to improve the efficiency and consistency of agencies' NEPA reviews (and, indirectly, to increase certainty for private project proponents) by setting forth a detailed series of instructions for addressing climate change in NEPA documents. Key aspects of the proposed guidance include the following:

  • The guidance recognizes that many federal agencies have concluded that their actions will have little impact on climate change because they are a small percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions, and warns that boilerplate statements along these lines are not sufficient to satisfy NEPA: "[T]he statement that emissions from a government action or approval represent only a small fraction of global emissions is more a statement about the nature of the climate change challenge, and is not an appropriate basis for deciding whether to consider climate impacts under NEPA."
  • The scope of an agency's analysis of climate change should not be limited to direct greenhouse gas emissions from specifically-permitted federal actions; analyses must also address upstream and downstream activities bearing a "reasonably close causal relationship" to those actions.
  • The guidance affirms a "rule of reason" (for which there is also support in case law) granting agencies considerable discretion to determine the nature and extent of their NEPA analyses. At the same time, however, the guidance clearly states that proposed actions with the potential to result in more than 25,000 MT CO2e per year should be the subject of quantitative analysis.
  • NEPA analyses prepared in connection with federal land management decisions (e.g., leasing plans, resource management plans, etc.) should address biogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although CEQ's NEPA guidance is not a rule or regulation within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, it is "persuasive" authority applicable to all federal agencies. And, in a somewhat unusual move, CEQ has "encouraged" agencies to apply the proposal to on-going NEPA reviews. There is no published timetable for finalizing the proposed guidance.

Dentons specializes in NEPA compliance and litigation for a broad range of infrastructure, energy and economic development projects. Our team includes the lead draftsman of NEPA's implementing regulations, and no NEPA document on which we have advised has ever been overturned in court.


by James Rubin and Jeff Lane

In his January 20, 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama stated, "And no challenge - no challenge - poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change." To meet this challenge, the President and his Administration are constructing a broad set of regulatory programs and agreements to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, seeking to build a lasting legacy on addressing the challenge of climate change. It may be up to a new Congress, and, more likely, the federal courts to determine how lasting that legacy may be.

International agreements

On November 12, 2014, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping jointly announced an agreement on reducing GHG emissions from their two countries by 2030, including new targets for emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China. The agreement, negotiated quietly through high level contacts, was intended to spur other nations, particularly in the developing world, to make their own cuts in GHG emissions as part of a new global agreement to be reached next year in Paris. The United States committed to reducing GHG emissions by 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, an increase in the reduction goal the President had set out in 2009. The President's recent Clean Power Plan (CPP) proposal, will be a key part of this commitment, setting a goal of a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the power sector by 2030 based on 2005 emission levels.

President Obama also announced the United States will contribute US$3 billion to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund over four years to help poor countries deal with the effects of climate change. The US pledge would take the fund a long way toward its initial investment goal of US$10-$15 billion.

These actions clearly had an impact at the recently concluded UN Climate COP in Lima (see above), helping to secure an agreement on a framework that could include broader participation by all nations in efforts to reduce GHGs globally. But it also engendered expected opposition from critics of the Administration's policies, many who are in power now that the newly elected Republican majorities in the House and Senate have begun their terms in 2015. The US financial commitment was already targeted by legislative riders in the waning days of last year's legislative session. Moreover, while the agreement with China is not legally binding, nor does it require congressional approval, it undoubtedly builds upon the recently-proposed CPP as well as potential measures to reduce methane leaks in oil and gas production. These regulatory programs, already highly controversial, will certainly be attacked in the new Congress and in the courts, leaving open to questions whether the United States will be able to live up to its commitments.

Regulatory programs

EPA has proposed two major regulatory pieces to reduce GHGs from the power sector under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program of the Clean Air Act. The first proposal, which would place limits on GHG emissions from new fossil-fuel power plants, ("new unit rule") was originally due in final form in January 2015. It has raised significant concerns by proposing that new coal-fired plants be capable of partial carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) while new gas plants achieve the highest standards of a combined cycle natural gas plant. The new unit rule will certainly be challenged in court upon publication, which is significant because it provides a condition precedent for regulation of GHG emissions from existing power plants. Hence, were the new unit rule to be invalidated by a court, it could potentially impact EPA's even more controversial rule, the CPP.

EPA published its proposed CPP in June 2014, setting out NSPS for GHG emissions from existing fossil-fuel power plants. In its proposal, EPA considered emission reduction strategies that went far beyond efficiency improvements at existing plants, looking at a broad range of actions across the energy sector that would reduce energy demand and so reduce GHG emissions. Based on these actions, EPA established strict targets for carbon emission rates per state to be achieved by 2030 with interim targets set in the 2020-2029 period. After extensive outreach to stakeholders, EPA provided an extended period for public comment, which ended on December 1, 2014. EPA now must consider over a million comments, many of which are very critical of the fundamental scope and authority underlying the proposal. Even EPA's staunchest allies have pressed for modifications to allow states more time and leeway to meet their 2030 targets and guidance on what actions may be acceptable, requests EPA may honor in some manner. EPA has also recently said it would issue a model rule for the CPP as guidance to states as they begin to plan for compliance and to show what requirements might apply if states do not act.

The CPP has already come under attack both in Congress and in the courts, and the new Republican majorities are likely to consider ways of thwarting both the NSPS proposals in 2015, whether through legislation, appropriation riders or congressional review act challenges. The final CPP was originally expected in June 2015, but EPA just recently announced it would publish both the new unit rule and CPP in final form at the same time by the middle of summer 2015, reflecting the volume of comments EPA must review but also the controversy surrounding the proposals and their inherent linkages. Once published, both rules will then begin to wind their inevitable way through the courts. An administration veto and split Senate may be all that protects this rule in Congress while a potential judicial resolution may not occur for several years. Since the interim target dates for the CPP may begin soon thereafter, states will need to consider how they might comply through a combination of heat rate improvements at coal plants, natural gas dispatch and increases in zero-carbon generation and energy efficiency measures, among others.

Other climate-related programs

EPA has plenty more on its plate relating to GHG regulation and emission reductions, including:

  • Implementing its pre-construction permit program for GHG emissions from major industrial sources following the Supreme Court's partial reversal of its Tailoring Rule in July 2014;
  • Determining how to handle carbon dioxide emissions from biomass fuel in current and potentially future GHG rulemakings;
  • Determining new volumetric requirements for its Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) program. EPA recently put off its 2014 RFS volumetric determination until early 2015, explaining that it needed to consider multiple comments to its proposal to lower statutory volume requirements for the first time in the program's history; and
  • Proposing a potentially broad set of initiatives to reduce releases of the potent GHG methane from the oil and gas sector. On January 14, 2015, the White House announced it would propose regulatory and voluntary measures aimed at reducing methane emissions from the sector to between 40-45% below 2012 levels by 2025. The regulatory measures would, in the first instance, be limited to new oil and natural gas production sources and natural gas processing and transmission sources for methane while reductions from existing sources would likely be based initially on state or industry-initiated practices. Regulatory proposals are expected in the Summer.

These programs have drawn congressional scrutiny and have been or will be subjects of judicial review, so their future is just as unclear.

All of the above elements are important components to the President's Climate Change Action Plan and thus are bricks in the edifice the Administration is constructing as a lasting legacy to address climate change. But they face an uncertain future with a new Congress hostile to allegedly "unilateral" exercises of executive authority with potentially significant impacts on power pricing, reliability and economic development. The President and his Administration will no doubt be quite busy in the next two years, trying to finalize this construction while fending off multiple and continued political and legal challenges. Ultimately, like many other Administration programs, the final word may lie with the federal courts well after the President's term ends in 2016.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions