Tag: Climate-Change

[NEWS, Oct. 12, 2019] Threat of Wildfire Prompts California Utility Companies to Cut Power to Customers

Threat of Wildfire Prompts California Utility Companies to Cut Power to Customers

On Wednesday, October 9, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) began shutting off power to nearly 800,000 customers in northern California. PG&E stated that the outages were necessary to preempt the risk of wildfires brought on by severe weather conditions like high winds and hot, dry air throughout the company’s service area.[1] At the time PG&E initiated the outages, the company anticipated that some customers could be without power for days.[2]

Southern California Edison Company (SCE), the largest utility provider in south-central California, including Los Angeles County, announced on Thursday, October 10, that it would start cutting power to customers in light of the hazardous conditions caused by the Santa Ana winds.[3]  The same day, wildfires broke out in SCE’s service area in Riverside County, east of Los Angeles.[4]  SCE anticipates that over 200,00 customers may be affected by the power outages.[5]

These controlled blackouts, also known as “preemptive de-energizations,” are the foundation of PG&E and SCE’s Public Safety Power Shut-off programs (PSPS), which are part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the risk of electrical infrastructure sparking fires. This is accomplished by temporarily turning off power to specific areas.[6] Following the wildfires that devastated parts of California in 2017 and 2018, the California PUC ordered electric utility companies to submit Wildfire Mitigation Plans[7] and this past summer, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a law that provides $21.5 billion in funding to help utilities pay for wildfire damage, and make upgrades to the electric infrastructure.[8] The California State Legislature, the California Public Utilities Commission (California PUC), and electric utility companies have, in turn, intensified their efforts to improve the safety of electric infrastructure as the threat of seasonal wildfires is exacerbated by changing climate. Dangerous weather conditions have started to subside, though line inspections may delay power returning to some PG&E customers for up to five days[9] and the fires in Riverside County continue to burn.[10]

Featured Image: National Weather Service Sacramento

[1] See Press Release, PG&E Begins to Proactively Turn Off Power for Safety to Nearly 800,000 Customers Across Northern and Central California, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Oct. 9, 2019), https://www.pge.com/en/about/newsroom/newsdetails/index.page?title=20191009_pge_begins_to_proactively_turn_off_power_for_safety_to_nearly_800000_customers_across_northern_and_central_california (last visited Oct. 9, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] See Press Release, , Santa Ana Winds Prompt SCE Public Safety Power Shutoffs in Some Southland Areas, Southern California Edison Company (Oct. 10, 2019), https://energized.edison.com/stories/santa-ana-winds-prompt-sce-public-safety-power-shutoffs-in-some-southland-areas.

[4] See Joseph Serna, Hannah Fry, & Alejandra Reyes-Velarde, Numerous Riverside County homes destroyed by fire; SoCal Edison cuts power to thousands, The Los Angeles Times (Oct. 10, 2019), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-10/l-a-faces-critical-fire-danger-possible-power-outages-as-santa-ana-winds-buffet-southern-california (last visited Oct. 10, 2019).

[5] See Public Safety Power Shutoffs, Current Status, Southern California Edison Co (effective Oct. 11, 2019), https://www.scemaintenance.com/content/sce-maintenance/en/psps.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2019).

[6] See Rulemaking 18-12-005, Decision Adopting De-Energization (Public Safety Power Shutoff) Guidelines (Phase I Guidelines), California PUC, p. 3 (issued May 30, 2019).

[7] See Rulemaking 18-10-007, Order Instituting Rulemaking to Implement Electric Utility Wildfire Mitigation Plans Pursuant to Senate Bill 901 (2018), California PUC (issued Oct. 25, 2018).

[8] See Alejandro Lazo & Katherine Blunt, California Legislature Approves Multibillion-Dollar Wildfire Fund, The Wall Street Journal (July 11, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-legislature-approves-multibillion-dollar-wildfire-fund-11562870591 (last visited Oct. 11, 2019).

[9] See Thomas Fuller, Californians Confront a Blackout Induced to Prevent Blazes, The New York Times (Oct. 10, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/pge-outage.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2019).

[10] Incident Overview, California Department of Fire & Forestry Protection, https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/ (last visited Oct. 11, 2019).

[NEWS, Oct. 12, 2019] Iceberg More Than Twice the Size of Chicago Breaks Off Antarctica

Iceberg More Than Twice the Size of Chicago Breaks Off Antarctica

On September 26, 2019, an iceberg measuring 632 square miles, weighing 315 billion tons, calved from an ice shelf in east Antarctica.[1] Calving is the sudden release of ice from the edge of a glacier, iceberg, or ice shelf. This event is the first major calving on the Amery ice shelf in over 50 years.[2]

Scientists do not attribute this large break of ice to climate change—despite it being the largest event in decades. Helen Amanda Fricker, a professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, states, “It’s part of the ice shelf’s normal cycle, where we see major calving events every 60-70 years.”[3]

While this event is not believed to be a direct result of climate change, calving in other areas is beginning to increase in depth and speed. Sue Cook from the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies expects iceberg calving incidents to increase in coming years due to climate change.[4] Cook explains, “There are a number of different processes that’ll happen . . . [a]s waters around Antarctica warm up, they’ll start thinning the ice shelves and making them more vulnerable to breaking up.”[5]

Featured Image: COPERNICUS DATA/SENTINEL-1/@STEFLHERMITTE, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450.

[1] See Lisa Cox, Giant iceberg breaks off east Antarctica, The Guardian (Sept. 30, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/01/giant-iceberg-breaks-off-east-antarctica (last visited Oct. 10, 2019); Jonathan Amos, 315 billion-tonne iceberg breaks off Antarctica, BBC News (Sept. 30, 2019), https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49885450 (last visited Oct. 11, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] See Carly Cassella, A Giant Iceberg Just Broke Off Antarctica in an Unexpected Location, Science Alert (Oct, 2, 2019), https://www.sciencealert.com/a-giant-iceberg-has-just-broken-off-antarctica-and-it-s-bigger-than-expected (last visited Oct. 10, 2019).

[5] Id.

[NEWS, Sept. 20, 2019] All Over the World, Millions of Student Protesters Hit the Streets Calling for Immediate Action to Combat Global Climate Change

More than 4 million people all across the globe went to the streets today calling on their governments to take immediate action to combat global climate change. The first rallies began shortly after sun rise in Australia, and then spread through the Pacific islands to India, Turkey, across Europe, finally landing in the United States.

The unprecedented youth turn out is largely attributed to 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg who launched the movement “Fridays for Future” last year.[1] According to Euro News, “a total of 1,718 climate actions were planned throughout the globe, including 948 in Europe,”[2] and more than 800 marches were launched in the U.S.[3]

*Featured Image: Sydelle Willow Smith for The New York Times (Sept. 20, 2019).

[1] Rafael Cereceda, Millions of Young People March for Climate in Historic Mobilisation, EuroNews (Sept. 20, 2019), https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/20/global-climate-strikes-kick-off-ahead-of-un-summit-on-climate-change (last visited Sept. 20, 2019).

[2] Id.

[3] Scott Neuman and Bill Chappell, ‘We’re Young, But We’re Not Dumb’: Millions March In Global Climate Strike, NPR (Sept. 20, 2019), https://www.npr.org/2019/09/20/762629200/mass-protests-in-australia-kick-off-global-climate-strike-ahead-of-u-n-summit (last visited Sept. 20, 2019).

[BLOG, Sept. 19, 2019] ENVIRONMENTAL DEREGULATORY LANDSCAPE IN 2019 By Jonathan Swisher

Environmental Deregulatory Landscape in 2019

President Trump believes that “an ever-growing maze of regulations, rules, restrictions [sic] has cost our country trillions and trillions of dollars, millions of jobs, countless American factories, and devastated many industries.”[1] He campaigned on the promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) “in almost every form,” leaving “only tidbits” intact.[2] According to the White House, “President Trump has reduced a historic number of burdensome and unnecessary regulations and stopped the massive growth of new regulations.”[3] The Administration’s environmental deregulatory agenda includes 85 rollbacks in air pollution and emissions standards, drilling and extracting, infrastructure and planning, wildlife protection, toxic substances and safety, and water pollution.[4] In the EPA’s FY 2020 Budget in Brief, the stated mission of the EPA is to “protect human health and the environment,” and according to the EPA, “we can all agree that we want a clean, healthy environment that supports a thriving economy.”[5] The report went on to say, “[e]nvironmental stewardship that supports a growing economy is essential to the American way of life and key to economic success and competitiveness.”[6]

The Administration’s most recent deregulatory success came with abandoning the Obama-era definition of what qualifies as “waters of the United States,” which provided enhanced protections for wetlands and smaller waterways. Under the new Rule, only wetlands “that are adjacent to a major body of water, or ones that are connected to a major waterway by surface water” will be federally protected.[7] The EPA gave four reasons for repealing the 2015 Clean Water Rule: (1) the Rule exceeded the agencies implementing authority based on Justice Kennedy’s significant nexus test in Rapanos;[8] (2) the Rule failed to adequately consider that it is the responsibility and right of the States to protect and “plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources’”; (3) to avoid future unconstitutional land encroachments by the federal government; and (4) the “distance-based limitations” suffer from “procedural errors” and lack “adequate record support.”[9] At a press hearing for the repeal, EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said that the EPA is “delivering on the president’s regulatory reform agenda,” and the agency is working on 45 more deregulatory actions.[10]

Critics of the Administration’s deregulatory agenda in the EPA have come just short of classifying it as “regulatory capture.”[11] Regulatory capture occurs when agency regulation departs from the public interest, and is directed towards the regulated industry. Although falling short of regulatory capture, critics believe the Administration’s actions show “an ambitious, intensifying movement to cripple the EPA’s capacity to confront polluting industries and promote public and environmental health.”[12] They further contend that the consequences of this deregulatory agenda “will likely fall hardest on vulnerable social groups, such as low-income communities, farmworkers, and first responders.”[13] On the other hand, proponents of the Administrations regulatory reform agenda are celebrating how the “Environmental Protection Agency managed to exceed its deregulatory goal” of removing two rules for every one they proposed.[14]

In addition to deregulation, the EPA has proposed to eliminate 41 current EPA programs and sub-programs while drastically cutting its budget in 2020. The EPA’s FY 2020 Budget in Brief requested $6.068 billion, which “represents a $2.76 billion, or 31 percent reduction from the Agency’s FY 2019 Annualized Continuing Resolution.”[15] The EPA contends that this budget is sufficient to support its “highest priorities” and fulfill its “critical mission for the American people.”[16] Among the programs to be cut are: Environmental Education, Pollution Prevention, Reducing Lead in Drinking Water, Regional Science and Technology and Water Quality Research and Support Grants.[17] While it is unlikely that the proposed budget cuts will be approved by Congress, the FY2020 Budget in Brief signifies a continued departure from the Obama-era expansion of the EPA.

With 85 environmental regulatory rollbacks, a proposed 31 percent reduction in funds, and the elimination of “funding for fourteen voluntary climate-related partnership programs,” President Trump is delivering on his campaign promise to eliminate the EPA “in almost every form.”[18] While the Administration continues to deliver on its promise, according to a 2019 Gallup Poll, “[b]y the widest margin since 2000, more Americans believe environmental protection should take precedence over economic growth when the two goals conflict.”[19] Currently, sixty-five percent of Americans, Republican and Democrat, believe that the environment should take priority over “a thriving economy.”[20]

While President Trump has not managed to eliminate the EPA “in every form,” he has managed to erode many of the environmental law principles which guided the agency for many years. Many States are pushing back against the Administration’s deregulatory agenda and countless lawsuits challenging their actions have been filed.

*Featured Image: 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, The New York Times (Sept. 12, 2019).

[1] President Donald J. Trump’s Historic Deregulatory Actions are Benefiting American Families, Workers, and Businesses The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-historic-deregulatory-actions-are-benefiting-american-families-workers-and-businesses/ (last visited Sep 15, 2019).

[2] The Fox News GOP debate transcript, annotated The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/the-fox-news-gop-debate-transcript-annotated/ (last visited Sep 15, 2019).

[3] The Office of White House, supra, n. 1.

[4] Nadja Popovich, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis, 84 Environmental Rules Being Rolled Back Under Trump, The New York Times (Sept. 12, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html (last visited Sep 15, 2019) (A New York Times analysis, based on research from Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School).

[5] FY 2020 EPA Budget in Brief, p. 1 (March 2019), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/fy-2020-epa-bib.pdf.

[6] Id.

[7] Bill Chappell, EPA Makes Rollback Of Clean Water Rules Official, Repealing 2015 Protections, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/760203456/epa-makes-rollback-of-clean-water-rules-official-repealing-2015-protections (last visited Sep 15, 2019).

[8] Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159 (2006).

[9] Definition of “Waters of the United States” – Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules (Pre-Publication Version) EPA (Sept. 12, 2019), https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/definition-waters-united-states-recodification-pre-existing-rules-pre-publication-version (last visited Sep 15, 2019) (quoting 33 U.S.C. 1251(b)).

[10] Id.

[11] Lindsey Dillon et al., the “EPA Under Siege” Writing Group, The Environmental Protection Agency in the Early Trump Administration: Prelude to Regulatory Capture, NCBI, S90 (2018), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5922212/pdf/AJPH.2018.304360.pdf.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14]EPA exceeds 2-for-1 deregulation goal set by Trump administration, Federal News Network, (Sept. 3, 2019), https://federalnewsnetwork.com/federal-drive/2019/09/epa-exceeds-2-for-1-deregulation-goal-set-by-trump-administration/ (last visited Sept. 23, 2019).

[15] FY 2020, supra, n. 5 at 1-2.

[16] Id. at 2.

[17] Id. at 89-93.

[18] Id. at 94.

[19] Lydia Saad, Preference for Environment Over Economy Largest Since 2000, Gallup (April 4, 2019) https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/preference-environment-economy-largest-2000.aspx (“Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 1-10, 2019, with a random sample of 1,039 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level”) (last visited September 18, 2019).

[20] See FY2020, supra, n. 5.

Page 3 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén