Climate Change

Even if You Can't Insure the End of Days, You Can Insure Some of the Effects of Climate Change

December 21, 2012 21:04
by J. Wylie Donald
Today is the day the world ended.  But it didn’t.  The spin put by some on the Mayan calendar didn’t pan out and the world continued.  Here in Baltimore we didn’t buy into the predictions, but just in case, we went looking for some end-of-the world insurance policies.  We didn’t come up with anything.  But while we were looking we turned up quite a bit of coverage for the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it.  Some call it climate change insurance; most just recognize it as an old friend taking on a few new attributes to meet the needs of the present.  We found quite a bit of that old friend.  There is the simple stuff.  Farmers grow crops.  If it doesn’t rain, there are no crops.  If it rains too much, there are no crops.  If hail is overwhelming, there are no crops.  If frost comes early, or stays late, there are no crops.  Sounds like extreme and variable weather and also the makings of an insurance policy.  Total Weather Insurance agrees.  The beauty of TWI's product is that the farmer need not prove any loss.  As The Economist reports, he or she just bets on the details of the weather on a 2.5  x 2.5 mile grid across the United States, and with data-processing getting more and more sophisticated, the variations of farming are smoothed substantially.   At the other extreme are catastrophe bonds.  These investment vehicles offer something very few investments can offer – zero correlation with the stock market.  In a nutshell (and according to Investopedia) a catastrophe bond is a “high-yield debt instrument that is usually insurance linked and meant to raise money in case of a catastrophe such as a hurricane or earthquake. It has a special condition that states that if the issuer (insurance or reinsurance company) suffers a loss from a particular pre-defined catastrophe, then the issuer's obligation to pay interest and/or repay the principal is either deferred or completely forgiven.”  We noted earlier this year that Florida’s Citizen’s Property Insurance Corporation issued the largest catastrophe bond ever at $750 million. That trend has continued with this year’s issuance exceeding last year’s by over $2.5 billion.    Some might say that the above would exist even if climate change were not occurring.  Possibly.  But what about insurance for renewable energy and for green buildings? William Gallagher Associates offers its Green Energy Insure product, recognizing that new technologies carry more risk than proven ones.  Green energy purveyors need to address the risks accompanying their technology and seek coverage for the failure of the technology itself, the cost of opening and closing the equipment to get to the problem, and any ensuing damage that may occur.  Green building insurance was pioneered by Fireman’s Fund, but it is no longer alone in the field.  Other companies such as AIG, Zurich, Travelers, and Chubb now offer products addressed to the issues green buildings face like vegetated roofs, building commissioning, recycling of debris rather than disposal, water and lighting efficiency, and certain certified professionals. One climate change product that has not made an appearance is greenhouse gas insurance.  So far as we know, no one is offering carbon dioxide coverage, at least by that name.  We have written many times before that such coverage is to be found in general liability policies and D&O policies under the general insuring agreement, because the absolute pollution exclusion doesn’t apply.  The issue has been litigated twice and the policyholder has won on both occasions. See Donaldson v. Urban Land Interests, Inc., 564 N.W.2d 728, 732 (Wis. 1997); Steadfast Ins. Co. v. The AES Corp.  The Mayan prophecy advocated by some did not come to pass today.  To assuage the disappointment, we will offer another.  Insurance products are wonderful; they are even more wonderful when they pay off.  People being what they are, there will be disputes over these new instruments.  The petitioning policyholder will be more likely to prevail where it has prudently purchased.  

Climate Change | Green Buildings | Greenhouse Gases | Weather

Will Climate Change Considerations Affect Rebuilding After Sandy? The Short Answer is Yes.

November 27, 2012 08:51
by J. Wylie Donald
West Virginia today and Virginia yesterday became the seventh and eighth states to obtain the benefits of a federal Major Disaster Declaration in connection with Superstorm Sandy.  They follow New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland and Delaware.  What does that mean?  Money.  Lots of money.  A key question will be whether that money goes to improving the resilience of the community for the next severe storm. As the FEMA announcements point out, eligible state and local governments may obtain: • Payment of not less than 75 percent of the eligible costs for removing debris from public areas and for emergency measures, including direct federal assistance, taken to save lives and protect property and public health • Payment of not less than 75 percent of the eligible costs for repairing or replacing damaged public facilities, such as roads, bridges, utilities, buildings, schools, recreational areas and similar publicly owned property, as well as certain private non-profit organizations engaged in community service activities.• Payment of not more than 75 percent of the approved costs for hazard mitigation projects undertaken by state and local governments to prevent or reduce long-term risk to life and property from natural or technological disasters.  However, if improvements are desired, “[f]ederal funding for such improved projects shall be limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs."  44 CFR 206.203(d). Discerning readers will have latched on to “eligible costs” as the essential criteria of the payments. What are they?  The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, makes that clear and it is not a good result.   Under the Stafford Act, eligible costs are “[based on] the design of the facility as the facility existed immediately before the major disaster; and (ii) in conformity with codes, specifications, and standards … applicable at the time at which the disaster occurred.”  42 USC 5172(e)(1)(A).  In other words, to put it in the words of Sean Reilly, a Board member of the post-Katrina Louisiana Recovery Authority, “Under the Stafford Act, you pretty much are relegated to building it back the way it was. You get the depreciated dollar, and you get a vision that says, 'OK, that was a 40-year-old building; let's rebuild a 40-year-old building.'”  But surely improved building codes or zoning requirements are covered?  They are, but only if they were in place before the calamity.  The regulations provide:  “For the costs of Federal, State, and local repair or replacement standards which change the predisaster construction of facility to be eligible, the standards must:  [among other things, be] formally adopted and implemented by the State or local government on or before the disaster declaration date.” 44 C.F.R. 206.226(b)(3)(i). One might justifiably be concerned that states and communities are being condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.  But there is a path to succor:  hazard mitigation by the FEMA Regional Director.  “Hazard mitigation” is “any cost effective measure which will reduce the potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event.” 44 CFR 206.201(f).  Under the regulations, the Regional Director is authorized to “require cost effective hazard mitigation measures not required by applicable standards. The cost of any requirements for hazard mitigation placed on restoration projects by FEMA will be an eligible cost for FEMA assistance.” 44 CFR 206.226(c).  That is, pre-disaster rules and codes are not the only game in town. If a state or municipality rebuilding from Superstorm Sandy wants federal dollars to help it anticipate the exigencies of the future, the FEMA Regional Director must be part of the dialogue. The future is a changing climate.  Thus, the dialogue will almost certainly include climate change adaptation.  Indeed, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Wildlife Federation filed a petition in October seeking to have FEMA explicitly require that climate change be considered in the preparation of state hazard mitigation plans. Connecticut and California already do so and FEMA Administrator Fugate appears to be on board.  As he stated in February of this year: "When I talk about climate resilience, I’m talking about how we need to forcefully communicate the risk we face in not building resilience to climate change at the local level, which might not have been in anyone’s experience previously ….  We cannot afford to continue to respond to disasters and deal with the consequences under the current model.  Risk that is not mitigated, that is not considered in return on investment calculations, oftentime steps up false economies. We will reach a point where we can no longer subsidize this.” A premise of the NRDC and NWF petition is that "If states receive federal funds for their disaster mitigation efforts, national taxpayers have a right to demand that the states engage in thoughtful planning to reduce the ultimate federal cost."  We think few would disagree with that.  We likewise think, as the petitioners do, that climate change needs to be part of the plan.

Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Regulation | Weather

A Tale of Two Credibilities: Hurricane Sandy and Recent Extreme Weather Reports

October 27, 2012 05:20
by J. Wylie Donald
It was the best of times.  It was the worst of times.  In North America, anyway.  As Hurricane Sandy looms over the Eastern seaboard, we thought it would be worthwhile to take a look at two recent reports about extreme weather.  Ceres, the investor focused “advocate for sustainability leadership,” issued in September its report:  Stormy Future for U.S. Property/Casualty Insurers:  The Growing Costs and Risks of Extreme Weather Events.  Munich Re, one of the world’s leading reinsurers, followed in early October with Severe Weather in North America.  If you want to read Severe Weather in full, it will cost you $100. If an executive summary will do, that only costs an email address.   Ceres’ report sets up the financial climate facing insurance companies today:  historically low investment returns, a sluggish economy,  and lagging economic performance as measured by return on equity.  It then recounts the vicissitudes of recent extreme weather.  In 2011 the insurance industry suffered more than $32 billion in losses, and “suffered the most credit downgrades in a single year since 2005.”  The federal government issued a record 99 disaster declarations. To get specific: Losses from excessive precipitation during 2008-2011 were the highest on record.Average annual winter storm losses have nearly doubled since the 1980s.Since 1980, wildfires burned the highest amount of acreage in 2005, 2006 and 2007; and in 2010, wildfires caused over $1 billion in damage (and in 2012 record setting wildfires occurred in Colorado and other parts of the West.).Losses from low precipitation (drought) during 2012 will be the highest since 1988. These cap a 30-year trend of increasingly extreme weather.  The effect of all this is, according to Ceres, a grave threat to insurers and those that rely on them.  Ceres goes on and asserts that climate change “likely” will exacerbate the effects of extreme weather.  Nevertheless, Ceres plays it cautiously:  “Connecting the linkages and impacts between rising temperatures and extreme events remains a highly technical exercise fraught with uncertainty.”  But notwithstanding the uncertainty, the cause of the potential economic problem for insurers is “increasing concentrations of insured assets, along with a changing global climate.”  Ceres' recommendations include calling for insurance companies to encourage customers to lower their carbon emissions footprint and to encourage "policymakers to take steps to reduce carbon emissions."  Is this unsupported advocacy or prudent business advice?  We conclude the former. We start with one of the central themes of Stormy Future:  the costs of extreme weather have been rising steadily over the last 30 years.  But as the report acknowledges, some part of the increase is due to the fact that there are more people, more infrastructure, and more buildings and other property than there were 30 years ago.  Even without any new extremes of weather the costs of weather-related disasters would have increased.  But Ceres offers no more than an acknowledgment.  There are no details to flesh out the relative contribution of extreme weather as compared to the contribution of increasing coastal populations and increasing property values. We discerned one hint.  In the last twenty years state subsidized insurance plans (so-called “residual” plans or state insurers of last resort) have expanded from $55 billion to $885 billion.  There would be no need for residual plans if people weren’t migrating to areas of higher risk, which for-profit insurers shun.   So with barely any data from Ceres, we went looking.  Professors Howard Kunreuther and his colleagues at the Wharton School had some interesting analysis in their 2009 work, At War with the Weather. Id. at 11.    When hurricanes from 1900 to 2004 are normalized for wealth (i.e., evaluating each hurricane’s impact if it had hit in 2004), the five hurricanes with the most impact occurred in 1926, 1992, 1900, 1915 and 1944. Hardly a trend for increasing extreme weather.  If Hurricane Katrina had been included, it likely would have topped the list, but that would have meant that the top five were 2005, 1926, 1992, 1900 and 1915, and still no extreme weather trend pops out.  Another researcher, Roger Pielke, Jr. has concluded similarly that there is no trend toward increasing extreme weather in the form of tornadoes.  It seems to us that Ceres should have assessed the impact of wealth concentration and population increase so that readers can reasonably conclude that climate-change-induced extreme weather is becoming an increasing substantial contributor to loss and not be forced to take Ceres at its word. Munich Re does better.  Severe Weather relies for its data on Munich Re’s NatCatService, which contains more than 30,000 records on natural catastrophe loss.  Based on a comprehensive review Munich Re concluded that extreme weather in North America has nearly quintupled in the last 30 years.  In Asia the increase is 4 times, 2.5 in Africa, 2 in Europe and 1.5 in South America.  This has resulted in increased losses.  Unlike Ceres, Munich Re recognized the importance of addressing the contribution of increasing concentration of wealth and population on rising losses.  The press release heralding Severe Weather  states:  “Up to now, however, the increasing losses caused by weather related natural catastrophes have been primarily driven by socio-economic factors, such as population growth, urban sprawl and increasing wealth.”  But the release goes on:  For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation. A detailed analysis of the time series indicates that the observed changes closely match the pattern of change in meteorological conditions necessary for the formation of large thunderstorm cells. Thus it is quite probable that changing climate conditions are the drivers. The climatic changes detected are in line with the modelled changes due to human-made climate change. Munich Re concludes that this is the “ initial climate-change footprint” in US loss data from the last four decades. “Previously, there had not been such a strong chain of evidence.”  There it is:  losses are increasing independently of increases in wealth and population and climate change is a cause. As noted above, others disagree with this conclusion.  In fact, Munich Re has been slammed in the press and in the blogosphere for over-hyping the risk in the search for profits.   What the criticism misses is that Munich Re is putting its information out into the marketplace.  Consumers are free to accept or reject it.  Those choices ultimately end up being reflected in the bottom line.  This is our fundamental point about climate change and economic activity. Substantially all business decisions are made with some uncertainty.  Why would those involving a changing climate be any different?  The question to be asked is whether there is enough information to guide action.  Climate change is having effects.  We know this.  Why?  Simply because it is occurring.  And we also know it because of the mountains of evidence.  Prudent business people must think about how those changes will affect them.  Munich Re gives some answers.   We would submit that business planning based on Ceres’ report would not be prudent – Ceres leaves out a fundamental analysis:  what is the effect of increasing concentrations of wealth and population on the increasing loss trends from extreme weather?  Munich Re’s report, on the other hand, gives a decision-maker a tool that addresses that uncertainty.  One chooses not to listen at one’s peril.  Hurricane Sandy is the 18th named storm of this hurricane season.  If it lives up to its hype, it will be long-remembered.  But even if it does not, that does not change the business imperative:  plan with the best information available.  We would submit that climate change should be part of that planning. 

Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Insurance | Sustainability

A Wind Farm in Oregon Threatens National Security and President Obama Acts

September 30, 2012 20:41
by J. Wylie Donald
This past Friday, President Obama stopped a national security threat in its tracks:  We quote: There is credible evidence that leads me [the President] to believe that Ralls Corporation (Ralls), ..., and its subsidiaries, and the Sany Group (which includes Sany Electric and Sany Heavy Industries), a Chinese company affiliated with Ralls (together, the Companies); and, Mr. Dawei Duan (Mr. Duan) and Mr. Jialing Wu (Mr. Wu), citizens of the People's Republic of China and senior executives of the Sany Group, who together own Ralls; through exercising control of Lower Ridge Windfarm, LLC, High Plateau Windfarm, LLC, Mule Hollow Windfarm, LLC, and Pine City Windfarm, LLC (collectively, the Project Companies), ..., might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States; … Accordingly, under section 721 of the Defense Production Act, the President ordered Ralls to divest itself of all interest in the project and to remove all construction – including any foundations. We knew climate change and national security were tightly connected.  After all, the Department of Defense issued Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security in October of last year. There we learned that destabilization of less affluent countries as a result of the effects of climate change was a primary risk and a threat to national security.  We did not learn anything about the threat posed by domestic windfarms.  Then Defense Secretary Panetta accepted an award in May 2012 from the Environmental Defense Fund on behalf of the Department of Defense.  He noted: “The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security; rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief”.  His domestic focus was cybersecurity, not wind turbines on the Oregon plateau. So it was something of a surprise that the Obama Administration engaged on climate change and national security by tangling with China on a small wind farm project in northeastern Oregon.  But then again, who knew Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman was just a few miles down the road testing drones and the electronics on airplanes such as the EA-18G Growler? Who knew?  The folks at the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) knew. CFIUS is a little known government entity.  A useful and prescient summary of the role of CFIUS in windfarm projects was published by our colleague at Steptoe & Johnson, Richard Reinis, back in 2009.  In a nutshell,  “The CFIUS statute authorizes the President to investigate the impact on US national security of mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers by foreign persons. If a transaction would result in an impairment of national security that could not be mitigated by agreement with the parties, the President may block the transaction or order divestiture of an already completed deal.”  Mr. Reinis then demonstrates his forecasting skills and describes where CFIUS approval might be necessary: “a wind farm within observation distance of a sensitive, national security installation, or in proximity of any other significant national security site.”  Fast forward three years and he could have been writing the President's order. To return to Naval Weapons Systems Training Facility Boardman, drones and the Growler, when CFIUS knows something, it can shut things down.  And it did.  Back in July CFIUS issued a cease and desist order to Ralls.  Ralls responded with a lawsuit challenging CFIUS authority under the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.  Following an agreement with the government to permit some limited preliminary construction, Ralls withdrew its suit.  Then came last Friday’s order.  Sany Group, Ralls’ Chinese affiliate, immediately vowed to sue. Sany Group’s and Ralls’s fight is certain to be an uphill battle;  the implementing legislation states that the President’s decisions are not subject to judicial review.  See 50 U.S. C. App. 2170(e).  Some have suggested that the path to success lies in a suit against CFIUS, not the President, under the holdng in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sackett v. EPA, where final agency action entitles one to judicial review.  If that is the case, we expect a further obstacle.  Litigating national security is notoriously difficult.  The government refuses to disclose the details of the national security question and the courts are handcuffed.  We are intrigued here by the order's twice-repeated requirement to remove any foundations.  Are super-sensitive detectors suspected among the rebar and concrete?  We recall the multi-million dollar fiasco of the U.S. embassy in Moscow, where bugs were embedded throughout.  We do not expect ever to find out the details of the national security threat posed by Ralls, in contrast (we hope) to the threats posed by other facets of climate change. 

Climate Change | Renewable Energy | Wind Energy | Supreme Court

If You Want More Climate Change Clients Do This

September 18, 2012 20:00
by J. Wylie Donald
We were in New York City today at a conference, Cooling on Climate Change: Designing the Message, sponsored by the Urban Green Council.  The conundrum to be unlocked was:  how come something as serious as climate change doesn't have politicians and the public standing in line to solve the problem?  The answer is obvious to trial lawyers:  even with the most compelling facts, if you don't have the jury emotionally, the result is likely to come out wrong.  Similarly, and the point of this article, clients may be very concerned about certain effects caused by climate change, but if the effects are wrapped in the gospel of climate change, you may be ineffective in communicating your ability to serve them. Opening the conference was Jim Hansen.  His credentials as one of the first scientists to sound the alarm and his dogged advocacy (even in the face of some heavy-handed muzzling by the second Bush administration) make him an advocate emeritus in some climate change circles.  Dr. Hansen noted that there is a huge gap between what scientists know and what the public knows.  There can be no dispute that the planet has warmed 0.6 degrees (C) in the last 30 years; that recent extreme summer heat events have covered 10% of the  earth's land area, where previously it was only .2%; that Arctic summer sea ice is reduced in extent by 50% and that the incidence of wildfires has increased 30-fold in the last 30 years.  He concludes that the fossil fuel industry is subsidized in that it does not pay for all the costs associated with the use of fossil fuels. He proposed a fee and dividend system where all fossil fuel producers are taxed at the production site and the tax is rebated directly to every citizen; the government would not keep a penny.  His system is transparent, market-based, stimulates innovation, does not enlarge government and leaves energy decisions to individuals.  He described his plan as conservative.  We think some will differ on that, perhaps because his compelling facts do not (as we will explain) compel. Next up was Elliott Diringer, of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (formerly the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which was characterized by the University of Pennsylvania as the world's leading environmental think tank).  After explaining the fundamental characteristics of the climate issue (among other things, it cannot be solved by one nation; most severe impacts are not here and not now; and the precise impacts and costs of action or inaction are not known), he noted the messages of both sides.  Those wishing to take action highlight the risks of inaction and promote the benefits of taking action such as "green" jobs, improved American competitiveness and national security, improvement in public health and intergenerational fairness.  Those opposed to action have discredited the science as politicized.  They exploit the uncertainties in the science and the uncertainty of future benefits.  They argue for fairness as China and India are not limiting their emissions and hold up the spectre of a world government and threats to national sovereignty.  After discussing the role of scientists in communicating the climate change message (he advocates for trusted non-scientist validators) and criticizing the media for always seeking "balance" when objectively there is no debate on many climate change topics, he came up with six "messages to the middle": 1.  Climate Change is here and now.2.  The costs of climate change are here and now and are growing.3.  Prudent risk management requires both mitigation and adaptation.4.  The upfront costs are sensible investments.5.  Acting now can have real benefits for public health and energy security.6.  The transition to a low-carbon economy is an economic opportunity.  Lisa Fernandez of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication spoke next.  She offered the statistics on public perception of climate change.  Since 2006 polling shows a sixteen point decline in the public's belief that climate change is happening.  Public support for addressing climate change was highest in 2006, the time of An Inconvenient Truth, the IPCC's continuing work and a robust economy.  Moving forward four years to 2010, the economy had tanked, "ClimateGate"  had occurred and the vaunted Copenhagen summit had failed to deliver.  Ms. Fernandez noted the perception that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists -- even though there is no debate among the majority of scientists.  There is a 98% consensus among scientists that climate change is happening and is in part anthropogenic.  She stated that research shows that in order for people to support action they need to be convinced that climate change is real, needs action, is solvable and is caused by humankind.  She concluded, however, that knowledge is necessary but not sufficient.  A striking statistic was that the proportion of respondents denying or dismissing climate change rose from 7% in 2006 to 26% in 2010.  Ms. Fernandez closed with more surveys on the need to tailor any message; one size certainly does not fit all. All of which set the table for David Ropeik, an expert on risk perception, communication and management.  Mr. Ropeik laid it out quite simply.  There are multiple features of thinking that determine how we perceive risk.  Most of these are in the subconscious. From the most basic neural pathways (responding to fear is hardwired into our brains) to our need to belong to our community to mental shortcuts that "fill in the blanks", each and all of these stand in the way of a rational response.  Until we understand that, we can have all the facts in the universe and may still fail to take action or even deny that action needs to be taken.  That you are reading this article demonstrates the validity of Mr. Ropeik's approach. Our title is something a sideshow barker might announce, triggering your preconceptions, hopes, and curiosity. Maybe you had some views about the veracity or utility of the author's perspectives. One thing you certainly did not have was any factual information about what the article would contain. But here you are anyway looking for what to "do" to get more climate change clients. Maybe the right way to sell climate change services is not even to mention climate change.  A speaker on the second panel, Daniel Probst of property manager Jones Lang Lasalle, completely agrees.  His clients are doing many of the things advocates for climate change action support but their incentive is not to save the planet.  They are improving the environmental performance of their buildings (the source of 40% of US CO2 emissions) because doing so saves them money, allows them to charge higher rents, reduces turnover, improves employee productivity and makes permitting easier.  Approaching clients on those topics unloads the controversy associated with climate change.  For some, that is exactly what will be needed to close the sale.  But for others, they will want the big picture and will value the "marketing to the middle" promoted by Mr. Diringer.  Neither approach will be right all of the time, but all of the time is not the metric.

Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Green Buildings

You Want Hantavirus With That View? Contagion Clouds the Air at Yosemite

September 13, 2012 09:03
by J. Wylie Donald
Nasty diseases like Ebola and SARS are not something one picks up in the good old USA, particularly at a national park, like, say, Yosemite.  Well that would be wrong.  Three visitors have died this summer from something called the hantavirus.  Infectious disease specialists have localized the most likely cause to a rustic tent site in Curry Village, popular with visitors to the park. Hantavirus is transmitted through the aerosolization of infected rodent feces and urine.  The mortality rate is about one in three. This is not good. You may be saying this is all very interesting, but hardly the subject for a blog about climate change.  Well that would be wrong too.  Concerning a link between hantavirus outbreaks and climate change, researcher B. Klempa came to this conclusion:  The early effects of global warming have already been observed in different geographical areas of Europe. Elevated average temperatures in West-Central Europe have been associated with more frequent Puumala hantavirus outbreaks, through high seed production (mast year) and high bank vole densities. On the other hand, warm winters in Scandinavia have led to a decline in vole populations as a result of the missing protective snow cover. B. Klempa, Hantaviruses and climate change, Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 15(6):518-23 (June 2009).  Jan Clement and his colleagues looked at the rising incidence of nephropathia epidemica (NE), an emerging hantavirus-caused illness, which “has become the most important cause of infectious acute renal failure in Belgium, with sharp increases in incidence occurring for more than a decade.”  Clement’s team reported: NE, a zoonosis scarcely known before 1990, has been increasing in incidence in Belgium with a cyclic pattern, to reach statistically higher and even epidemic proportions since 2005. NE is a rodent-borne infection, implying that it is at least partly climate-dependent. … A higher availability of staple food for the rodent reservoir Myodes glareolus, together with a higher autumn-winter survival of this rodent, explains the higher and cyclic NE occurrence in Belgium and in neighbouring countries, Germany in particular. … The fact that the growing combined effect of hotter summer and autumn seasons is matched by a growing epidemic trend of NE in recent years, can be considered as an effect of global warming. J. Clement et al., Relating increasing hantavirus incidences to the changing climate: the mast connection, International Journal of Health Geographics 8:1 (2009).  At Yosemite, what has been happening to the population of deer mice ?  It has been increasing.  Traps set for mice following the hantavirus outbreak caught mice at a rate at least twice what had been recorded previously.  And it is hardly news that California’s winters have been milder and summers hotter.  Climate change is alleged to be the culprit.  See, e.g., California ex rel Lockyer v. General Motors Corp., No. 06-CV-05755, Complaint ¶¶ 47, 55 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 20, 2006) (one of the first climate change liability cases) (attached below).  The jury is still out on whether California's recent weather would cause an increase in the population of deer mice or not.  But as we have written previously, proving the causative role of climate change is not our point, others can do that.  We focus on what one can do in the face of climate change. Whether the hantavirus outbreak is climate-change driven or not, increases in the range and incidence of infectious disease is a predicted outcome.  Businesses need to prepare.  The first thing of course is to recognize that the fundamental feature of climate change is just that:  change.  And change means that there is no reason to believe that what was satisfactory in the past will continue to be satisfactory.  For example, one of the news stories on the hantavirus outbreak demonstrates this repeatedly.  The article reports criticism of park employees for failing to warn visitors after the first few cases were noted.  Guests continued to be checked into the suspect tents for over a week after the park service began deep cleaning the tents.  The tent design, with a space between the inner and outer fabric, permits mice to enter that space.  The National Park Service, and likely its concessionaire, will undoubtedly be revisiting their procedures and their equipment.  One can also envision claims for failure to warn, negligence and product liability by injured visitors or their estates.  And certainly, even without any claims, business is down at Yosemite.  The concessionaire would do well to investigate its liability, property and business interruption insurance policies, although it is certainly too late now to do anything about the terms of coverage.  That is not so for others, however.  One typical exclusion, for example, that will make coverage difficult for hantavirus claims (or any disease claims such as SARS, or swine flu, or dengue fever) is the Mold, Fungus and Organic Pathogen Exclusion.  As its name suggests, insurers certainly will assert that injury arising from exposure to the hantavirus is excluded.  But that argument could be eliminated if the insured had simply negotiated for a Fungus or Bacteria Exclusion, such as ISO’s CG 21 67 12 04. In any event, reading from a new perspective whatever exclusion is proffered can only help a company to manage its risks better. Some will say that the chances of a hantavirus outbreak affecting one’s business are vanishingly small.  We don’t dispute that.  What is not vanishingly small is the fact of climate change and that its effects are not vanishing. 2006 California ex rel. Lockyer v. General Motors Complaint.pdf (36.16 kb)

Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Insurance

Climate Change Challenges the Republican Convention

August 26, 2012 21:44
by J. Wylie Donald
When the Republican National Committee made the decision to call off Day 1 of the Republican Convention as Hurricane Isaac threatened the Gulf littoral, some thought it was an appropriate comeuppance for Republican obstruction of climate change legislation. We won't pass such judgments.  Our focus here is all about addressing climate change; we leave it to others to assess the blame. What we have noticed, however, is a rising swell of concern in the electorate about climate change, which might start to cause  the Republicans some concern.  To be sure, this is only anecdotal, and filtered through's prism.  Still, sometimes it is meet to consider other viewpoints. We start with a Superfund site community meeting we attended a few months ago.  The site is near the ocean and one citizen asked whether the proposed remedy considered rising sea levels. EPA's answer was non-commital.  We next stopped in at a public meeting hosted by the Maryland Public Service Commission to consider electric service reliability. The citizenry turned out en masse to excoriate Baltimore Gas and Electric. Overflowing the hearing room, they questioned BGE's ability to handle the increasingly more severe weather (record blizzards in 2010, Hurricanes Irene and Lee in 2011 and the June 29, 2012 derecho - a new storm word in most vocabularies).  We took away a new thought:  extreme weather can trash not only your facilities; it can also trash your reputation if you are not prepared to deal with it.  And this is so whether one believes climate change is the cause of the problem or not. And what do we know about extreme weather? National Geographic delivered a frightening cover story on the subject in the September 2012 issue. We can't do justice to the article here but note a few unequivocally disturbing facts:  "As the oceans warm, they're giving off more vapor.  ... During the past 25 years satellites have measured a 4 percent average rise in water vapor in the air column.  The more water vapor, the greater the potential for intense rainfalls." This followed a description of the "once-in-a-millenium" flood in Nashville in 2010, which received over 13 inches of rain, more than twice the previous record. And Nashville wasn't alone; the article mentions record floods in Rio de Janiero. Pakistan and Thailand. "Extreme events ... are happening more frequently than they used to." From floods to droughts to heat waves, "Losses from such events helped push the cost of weather disasters in 2011 to an estimated $150 billion worldwide, a roughly 25 percent jump from the previous year."  These losses are characterized in the article by the Reinsurance Association of America as "extraordinary."  More ominously:  "The past is not prologue to the type of weather we're about to see." The article concludes that climate change is part of the cause of this demonstrably increasing extreme weather. National Geographic's circulation is about 5 million monthly in the United States. Query weather that means 5 million voters that believe something ought to be done about it? Extreme weather is not the only climate change effect that is impacting individuals. The News Journal, "serving Delaware daily since 1871," ran a 3-part front-page series last Sunday, Monday and Tuesday on the effects of climate change on Delaware and Maryland. One can look at the predictions of Delaware's losses in the next century:  • All of Delaware’s 73,400 acres of tidal wetlands, and 98 percent of its tidal marsh • Up to 15,000 Sussex County homes or businesses; 18,000 statewide, including 5 percent of identifiable commercial properties. • 44 percent of the state’s parks, refuges, conservation areas and otherwise protected land. • 5 percent of roads and bridges, including 6 percent of evacuation routes. • 6 percent of railroad lines, including areas around Wilmington’s Amtrak station. Or one can look at the effects that are being felt now:  A farmer near Milford is watching salt-water brine kill his crops a mile inland from Delaware Bay. Homeowners in Kitts Hummock have been told by the State that the beachfront community should "go back to nature" "it's not cost-effective to save." The Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland is losing an acre a day to erosion and inundation. The salt marsh habitat is, or is becoming, open water. James Island has lost 160 acres to Chesapeake Bay. Smith Island, one of two inhabited islands in the bay, is likely to be entirely submerged should sea level rise another foot. The series notes: "those who don't see or feel the weight of the evidence are finding the facts harder to ignore."  The News Journal, the paper of record in Delaware, thinks climate change is worthy of the front page three days running. The smart money is on those - Republican or Democrat - who have a plan to address it; those whose plan is to deny it are going to get wet, or worse. 

Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Regulation | Rising Sea Levels | Weather

The NFIP is Renewed and Reformed, and Climate Change Is Very Much in the Picture

July 8, 2012 14:18
by J. Wylie Donald
President Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, aka "MAP-21", this past Friday.  Support was broad:  the House voted 373-52; in the Senate it was 74-19 in favor.  The bill is a potpourri.  The bulk of the enactment addresses surface transportation topics, but it also includes measures to keep down student loan interest rates, overflights of the Grand Canyon, sport fish restoration, and extensive reform of the National Flood Insurance Program (including significant climate change provisions).  Interestingly, the White House eschews both statutorily-provided titles and chooses a simpler nomenclature, the Transportation and Student Loan Bill.  According to the White House, the Bill "accomplishes two important goals -- keeping thousands of construction workers on the job rebuilding America's infrastructure and preventing interest rates on federal student loans from doubling." These features are important, but we think the bill's significance will come from the unheralded feature:  reform of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).  Reform is sorely needed.  As stated on the FEMA "Rethinking the NFIP" website, "The NFIP was designed as a means of discouraging unwise occupancy of flood prone areas, yet occupancy of these areas has expanded since 1968. Additionally, as risks continue to increase, the cost of flood insurance mirrors that increase, making it unaffordable for many Americans."  Criticism of the NFIP was nearly universal following Hurricane Katrina.  The program was underfunded - premiums came nowhere near the amount needed to cover claims (the NFIP is over $15 billion in debt).  Floods were repeatedly damaging the same properties, which had been rebuilt sometimes three or four times in the same location.  Fewer than half the properties at risk were covered; in some areas uninsured properties were the substantial majority.    The Washington Post in a 2005 editorial called for compulsory insurance and the end of subsidized rates.  A Wall Street Journal article reached similar conclusions.  Notwithstanding, reform could not be obtained.  The NFIP limped along living (and, on occasion, even dying) on borrowed time.   Since 2008, it has been extended no fewer than 15 times.  Four times the program lapsed as lawmakers could not come to terms.    Somehow, however, with the most recent extension due to expire on July 31, reformers prevailed and the act was revised and extended for another five years to September 30, 2017.  The reform act, known as the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (sec. 100201)), can be found at Title II of Division F (Miscellaneous) of MAP-21.   The reforms are extensive (and they will leave many wondering how any of these reforms were opposed in the first place).  Among other things, the bill provides: Subsidies for many properties are being phased out.  For example, a "severe repetitive loss property" (i.e., where payments for flood-related damage exceed fair market value of the property) is no longer eligible for a subsidized rate (sec. 100205(a)(1)). In setting rates the principles and standards of the American Academy of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuarial Society are to be followed, including "an estimate of the expected value of future costs" (sec. 100205(b)(3)).  The "average historical loss year" is to include "catastrophic loss years" (suggesting that previous averages did not include catastrophic losses, which is a calculus many would like to use with their insurers) (sec. 100211). Insurance premiums can now rise up to 20% per year (sec. 100205(c)).  10% was the earlier cap on premium increases. Multifamily properties (greater than 4 residences) can now  purchase NFIP policies (sec. 100204). There are now minimum deductibles for flood claims (sec. 100210).. A Technical Mapping Advisory Council is established to address flood map revision and maintenance  (sec. 100215(a)). A variety of studies are required:  among others, a study of the addition of business interruption and additional living expenses coverages; a report on graduated risk behind levees; a report on privatizing the NFIP; a report on "nationally recognized building codes as part of the floodplain management criteria", and a study on participation in, and affordability of, the NFIP (secs. 100231, 100232, 100233, 100235, 100236). In light of the politicization of the climate change topic, perhaps the most astounding of all the changes in the NFIP is the acknowledgement in the bill that climate change is a critical consideration in establishing a program that works.  (We and others have called for this for some time, see Underwater?  What Climate Change Means for a Loan Portfolio Near the Flood Plain).  The Technical Mapping Advisory Council must report to the FEMA Administrator within one year of enactment on the following: 100215(d) Future Conditions Risk Assessment and Modeling Report- (1) IN GENERAL- The Council shall consult with scientists and technical experts, other Federal agencies, States, and local communities to-- (A) develop recommendations on how to-- (i) ensure that flood insurance rate maps incorporate the best available climate science to assess flood risks; and (ii) ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency uses the best available methodology to consider the impact of-- (I) the rise in the sea level; and (II) future development on flood risk; ... And this report cannot just sit on the shelf.  The Administrator is obligated to, "as part of the ongoing program to review and update National Flood Insurance Program rate maps ..., shall incorporate any future risk assessment submitted [in the required report] in any such revision or update." (sec. 100215(d)(2)). We note that the statute speaks definitively about sea level rise.  It is not something indefinite; rather, the report must consider the impact of the rise in the sea level.  We also note that "best available climate science" is standard phrasing at NOAA, and the National Park Service, as well as among NGOs.  How it will fare in the ultimate report is, of course, unknown.  But we do not expect the effects of climate change will be shouted down, turned away or buried.  At the end of the day, the conclusions in the report will influence how money is to be spent and who will profit.  The best way to figure that out is to use the best information.  Certainly some will have an interest in obscuring the best available science, but the bipartisan support of the bill suggests that many more may have an interest in just getting the best answer.

Climate Change | Climate Change Effects | Flood Insurance | Legislation | Regulation | Rising Sea Levels

The Top 6 at 6: A Review of the Most Important Climate Change Legal Stories in the First Half of 2012

June 30, 2012 21:01
by J. Wylie Donald
Arbitrary and capricious.  Familiar words to anyone involved in regulatory activity.  But also applicable to calendars, which willy-nilly cut off a series of events and ascribe them to one solar cycle, as if the sun gave two hoots.  As we perused the various "Climate Change: Year in Review" reviews that crossed our desk last January, we concluded 365 days are arbitrary and one year capricious in assessing what is important to resurrect and re-discuss.  We further concluded that a 12-month look-back is too long.  So, for what it is worth, here is one of six months. 1.  Cap-and-Trade in the U.S. - On January 1 the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) (or what remains of it) initiated its long-anticipated cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.  Notwithstanding the lack of support from other WCI members, California and Quebec are moving forward with a cap-and-trade program.  California's and Quebec's mandated reporting rules applied to stationary sources emitting at or above 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.  On May 9 coordination between the two programs was announced  initiating the 45-day public comment period.  The first auction will be held in November and then, on January 1, 2013, enforcement begins when covered entities must participate. It is obviously too soon to tell how successful the California program will be, but when the world's eighth largest economy takes an initiative, it is likely to have impact elsewhere, particularly when it is the only program in the nation. 2.  Greenhouse Gas Liabilities and Insurance Coverage - We didn't think there would be anything to say this year about coverage for GHG liabilities.  After all, in the only case in litigation the Virginia Supreme Court issued its opinion in AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co. in September 2011 and concluded that there was no "occurrence" triggering coverage made in the allegations pleaded by the Native Village of Kivalina against AES Corporation.  But then the Court granted a motion for reconsideration in January and many puzzled as to what was going on.  Apparently nothing as the Court reiterated its previous conclusions in an April 20, 2012 opinion.  The decision will be significant in Virginia because it may have upset coverage in more conventional cases, as the concurring opinion of Justice Mims suggests.  As for the rest of the nation, it is one decision, on one issue, on one set of facts.  The case is important because it is the first, but we will be surprised if it provides guidance anywhere else. As for greenhouse gas liability that is a story unto itself.  Like something out of a Steven King novel, the Comer v. Murphy Oil case refuses to pass quietly into the night.  This is the case that was dismissed by the Southern District of Mississippi, reversed by the 5th Circuit, vacated by the 5th Circuit en banc when it accepted rehearing and then reinstated as dismissed when the 5th Circuit's quorum dissolved.  Following a denial of a request for a writ of mandamus from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Comer plaintiffs re-filed their complaint against over 100 electric utilities, oil companies, chemical companies and coal companies alleging their GHG emissions were responsible for the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina.  And the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the plaintiffs again on March 20.  And plaintiffs appealed again.  We don't expect the case to be finally at rest until the Supreme Court denies certiorari, or accepts it (perhaps in order to address the Ninth Circuit's much-anticipated decision in Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, which has been pending for over six months since oral argument). 3.  Natural Gas:  The Bridge Fuel - With the combining of two technologies, hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, a resource of unprecedented volume is "changing the game" of energy.  "Annual shale gas production in the US increased almost fivefold, from 1.0 to 4.8 trillion cubic feet between 2006 and 2010. The percentage of contribution to the total natural gas supply grew to 23% in 2010; it is expected to increase to 46% by 2035."  Thus reported the Energy Institute at the University of Texas in February in a 400+ page tome entitled Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.  Momentously, the UT researchers report "there is at present little or no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing of shales at normal depths."  The reference to "normal depths" acknowledged that in December 2011 the EPA linked contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming to shallow fracking operations. In March 2012, however, EPA agreed to conduct further testing.  And then in May, a personal injury tort case, Strudley v. Antero Resources Corp. et al., No. 2011-CV-2218 (2d Jud. Dist. Ct. Col. May 9, 2012), brought against fracking operators in Colorado was thrown out because plaintiffs could not muster adequate proofs of specific causation. Despite some intense opposition, fracking is moving forward.  What does all of this have to do with climate change?  Natural gas when burned emits half the carbon dioxide of coal.  Accordingly, some argue that natural gas is the bridge to a low-carbon future.  If so, then fracking builds that bridge. 4.  Innovative Climate Change Legal Theories - Last spring the sound and the fury were intense as the environmental organization Our Children's Trust unleashed several dozen regulatory petitions and a dozen lawsuits across the nation.  The goal:  establish the public trust doctrine as applicable to the atmosphere and use it to implement greenhouse gas regulation.  It appears that all of that is signifying nothing. Over two dozen petitions were denied in 2011 and two lawsuits were dismissed (Montana and Colorado).  It did not get any better in 2012.  The first six months of this year delivered only bad news to OCT.  State courts dismissed lawsuits in Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington.  The federal court in the District of Columbia did the same.   Plaintiffs took a voluntary dismissal in California.  To be sure, OCT has filed appeals (the one in Minnesota is scheduled to be argued on July 18).  Having failed to convince a single court so far, we think we are safe in predicting an uphill battle. 5.  Power Plant Performance Standards - On April 13, 2012, a scant seven months before the presidential election, the EPA published in the Federal Register standards of performance for all new fossil fuel-fired electricity-generating units requiring them to meet an electricity-output-based emission rate of 1,000 lb of carbon dioxide for every megawatt-hour of electricity generated.  The only plants that can meet this standard without implementing costly carbon capture and storage technology are natural gas plants.  Thus, the administration took a strong stand against coal-based generation.  Or it is all smoke and mirrors.  As EPA notes in the proposed rule, because of the glut of natural gas made available by fracking, there is little likelihood of a new coal-powered plant before 2030.  Notwithstanding, industry groups have filed a half-dozen lawsuits seeking to derail the rule. 6.  EPA's Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Program - Less than a week ago USEPA and its GHG program got a firm "thumbs up" from the D.C. Circuit.  Inundated with over two dozen appeals of various USEPA GHG regulations, the Endangerment Finding, the Tailpipe Rule, the Tailoring Rule and the Timing Rule (for citations see The DC Circuit Locks in USEPAs GHG Regulations Sort Of). The court turned away every challenge, sometimes on the merits and sometimes on procedural grounds such as standing.  There is much that deserves comment not the least of which are the differences between the states with California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, lining up on one side, and Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia lining up on the other.  To focus more on legal matters, several challenges were turned away on standing.  For example, neither states nor industry groups could challenge the Tailoring Rule as they did not allege the requisite injury.  Because the Tailoring Rule benefits small businesses (who are not required to comply with certain GHG emission requirements), it would appear that the door may remain open for parties who allege competitive injury (i.e., non-regulated entities gain a competitive advantage). In the meantime, do not expect Congress this election year to touch the issue.    

Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change | Climate Change Litigation | Greenhouse Gases | Insurance | Legislation | Regulation | Year in Review

Rio+20 Disappoints But Does Renewable Energy Need an International Treaty to Move Forward?

June 23, 2012 14:34
by J. Wylie Donald
Rio+20 wrapped up yesterday.  The moniker derives from the twentieth anniversary of the Earth Summit, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which was held in Rio de Janeiro.  This reprise was billed as “an historic opportunity to define pathways to a safer, more equitable, cleaner, greener and more prosperous world for all.”  The conferees focused on two themes:  “How to build a green economy to achieve sustainable development and lift people out of poverty, ... and how to improve international coordination for sustainable development." The agenda was dense, ranging from jobs to  energy, sustainable cities to food security and sustainable agriculture, and water and oceans to disaster readiness.  Some criticized this “all things to all people” approach.  We take a more pragmatic view:  “whatever works.” Unfortunately, it does not appear that much is working.  All that was agreed was that there would be more discussion in the future.  Criticism of the conference was uniform.  NPR panned it as “one of the biggest duds.”  The New York Times captured the disappointment of CARE (a political charade), Greenpeace (a failure of epic proportions) and the Pew Environment Group (a far cry from success). Even Sha Zukang, Secretary-General of the conference, could muster little positive to say:  "This is an outcome that makes nobody happy. My job was to make everyone equally unhappy," If the goal was another international agreement filled with platitudes that would accomplish nothing, that was not achieved.  But we would like to suggest that something positive may be coming.  We would like to focus on just one of the initiatives, Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL).  Conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, SE4ALL has three objectives: 1. Universal access to electricity2. Increased use of renewable energy3. Increased energy efficiency Over 1.3 billion people in the world do not have access to electricity for their homes and work. Electricity is enabling.  Whether for studying after dark, pumping irrigation water, eliminating wood/charcoal/dung stoves, or refrigerating medicine, the benefits of electricity are immediate and life-changing.  The program calls for innovation and investment, and policy choices that enhance innovation and investment. Renewable energy is part of the program for many of the reasons raised in this country:  job creation, reduction of greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions, insulation from price volatility, and increased energy security.  A justification not common to the domestic debate about renewable energy is also put forth.  Renewable energy can cut balance-of-payment imbalances, The program’s goal is to double the share of renewable energy in the world energy use portfolio by 2030. “Of the three objectives of Sustainable Energy for All, improving energy efficiency has the clearest impact on saving money, improving business results, and delivering more services for consumers.”  Thus efficiency improvements are the easiest point of entry for lifting more people out of energy deprivation for less money.  The program’s goal is to double the current rate of efficiency improvement by 2030. Is this all pie in the sky? Two vantage points suggest it is not.  First, the investment community very much supports the renewable energy sector.  Michael Liebriech, the CEO of Bloomberg New Energy Finance gave an interview at Rio+20 and made the point that he’s seen $1 trillion pour into the sector globally since 2004.  “My clients really don’t necessarily care about what’s happening in the negotiations. They’re concerned about what’s right in front of them. What would you rather trust, a decades-long process that hasn’t resulted in a whole lot of progress, or a trillion dollars in investment?”  Diplomats and governments should listen. Second, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who grew up without electricity, has explained why SE4ALL is a program worth putting forward:  "Widespread energy poverty condemns billions of people to darkness, to ill health and to missed opportunities ....”   One can imagine him continuing:  “I had seen first-hand the grim drudgery and grind, which had been the common lot of … generations of … farm women. I had seen the tallow candle in my own home, followed by the coal-oil lamp. I knew what it was to take care of the farm chores by the flickering, undependable light of the lantern in the mud and cold rains of the fall and the snow and icy winds of winter. … I could close my eyes and recall the innumerable scenes of the harvest and the unending punishing tasks performed by hundreds of thousands of women, growing old prematurely, dying before their time, conscious of the great gap between their lives and the lives of those whom the accident of birth or choice placed in the towns and cities.”   Except that is not the Secretary General, it is Senator Frank Norris, the champion of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, which literally turned the lights on across much of rural America.  Rural electrification was a good idea then, as millions can attest.  And it is a good idea now.  The trick today is how to wed the developing renewable energy sector, with the billions of dollars of investment being made, to an electrification program for 1.3 billion people.  A distinction here that will make electrification easier than it was in the 1930s, is that many renewable energy sources (solar, wind, tidal) by their nature can be utilized without investment in large power distribution networks.  If SE4ALL is about innovation and investment, it seems eminently achievable.

Climate Change | Legislation | Renewable Energy | Solar Energy | Sustainability


The business case for the development of renewable energy projects, from biodiesel and ethanol to wind, solar, and distributed generation, is more compelling than ever as tax and regulatory incentives combine to attract investments. Emerging issues in environmental law and increasingly recognized principles of corporate social responsibility are encouraging public companies to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions, install clean energy alternatives, and invest overseas in projects under the Kyoto Protocol to respond to climate change concerns.

Click here for more information and a list of our group members.


© 2017 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved. disclaimer
navbottom image