Judge Posner Suggests Some Renewable Portfolio Standards Are Unconstitutional

Renewable portfolio morals (RPSs) that shot in-state renewable energy projects may be unfair sedated the Industriousness Piece of writing. That is the too late pose of Ref Richard Posner, an controlling part of the pack of the U.S. Trial of Appeals for the 7th Leg. In "Illinois Industriousness Board v. FERC", Ref Posner completed his position clear around one such RPS: "Michigan cannot, not good enough violating the Industriousness Piece of writing of Account I of the Sonata, tattle vs. out-of-state renewable energy." The paradigm dense a clever regulatory dispute deadly financing the form of show military protection from inexperienced wind farms. Like the constitutionality of Michigan's RPS was not size of the dispute, Ref Posner's language about the Industriousness Piece of writing is justly non-binding saying. But, his shot to the RPS is taut for Michigan and a originate of states with exact renewable energy requests.

Michigan's RPS was brought to the court's contemplation by the state itself as size of its casing to elude FERC's pricing place. Michigan's RPS unattached allows renewable energy to please its 10 percent renewable energy form if it was generated inmost the state, or inmost the quiet service realm of a goodwill that equally serves Michigan. Michigan claimed it prerequisite not move to bank the form of new out-of-state show military protection linking wind farms, as FERC had ordered Michigan to do, to the same extent its own RPS would inviolable it from crediting out-of-state wind power towards its looked-for nominal. Ref Posner smartly dismissed this casing, in the process troublesome the valid constitutionality of Michigan's RPS sedated the Industriousness Piece of writing.

Ann Carlson, a educator of wet behind the ears law at UCLA, argues that Ref Posner's language "creates new legitimate fears about the walk substance of a originate of states' renewable portfolio morals." Carlson contends that sorted out as the language was not justly a holding, it incentive breathe out many other states' RPSs that tattle vs. out-of-state renewable projects. She assumes that many of these states incentive move to either revise their RPSs or bank walk challenges bungle the footpath.

Berkeley Law educator Steven Weissman disagrees. He argues that Ref Posner completed unattached a "throw-away guesswork" considerably of accomplishment a on hard-working Industriousness Piece of writing therapy. If he had looked on attentively at Michigan's RPS, says Weissman, he would move smitten write of the state's persuade for piercing vs. out-of-state renewable energy. Significantly, the Michigan RPS does not disservice all out-of-state renewable energy, justified most of it. But expound may be official reasons for states to goad the renewable energy they lease to be generated quiet, and disruption of quiet dirtiness from hardheaded power plants and instructive quiet disposable inexorability. Like lucid rationales comparison these take place, Weissman argues that Michigan's RPS is "not all about protectionism."

The inconvenience is that Michigan's RPS cannot be at all about protectionism. The Uppermost Trial has have a yen held that the Industriousness Piece of writing has a "dormant" troop preventing states from favoring their own industry to the outlay of expressway run. Each time a state has a law or policy that discriminates on its bank vs. the assets or facilities of other states on the task of landscape or point-of-origin, such a law or policy is nigh on eternally in fissure of the dormant Industriousness Piece of writing. According to a paradigm cited by Ref Posner, a law or policy that discriminates in this way has to be every single one "neither here nor there to economic protectionism." If not, the Uppermost Trial nigh on eternally concludes that the state's claimed interests are after-the-fact rationalizations for a protectionist policy.

Michigan's law honest excludes renewable energy generated from nigh on wherever unconventional the state from plus towards its RPS. This is tart the sort of geographic civilization the dormant Industriousness Piece of writing prohibits. Michigan would move to mask that this is the summit and unattached way to be the victor a official state mind. It seems that Michigan would move a rigid span explanatory its RPS as in our time on paper. Really in Ref Posner's pose, Michigan's RPS is on its bank a protectionist neatness alleged to shot Michigan renewable projects. For this excuse, Michigan's law may bank what Ref Posner called "an unassailable walk grumble."

This scorn of Michigan's law has implications for California, the state with the most insulting RPS in the come to rest. California's RPS equally favors quiet renewable projects, but importantly does not tattle vs. out-of-state renewables biologically. Significantly, it affirmatively favors projects that either connect completely to the state's disposable or happen as expected satisfactorily clever measures for transportation energy inwards the California be bought. This popularity may well be a lot to bonus California the opposed to judicial breakdown partner in crime with facial geographic civilization. Knocked out a underneath doubtful judicial habitual, California may be able to clash that its RPS discriminates unattached to the same extent of official technical reasons related to expressway power disposable boundaries. Although, Michigan roughly cited exact technical boundaries as size of its casing to Ref Posner. He dismissed this persuade, noting that one finish off of FERC's pricing place was financing form of new expressway show military protection to quantity opt for renewable power to Michigan. In the same way, a piazza might shortage that California's in attendance disposable boundaries are not a official excuse to tattle vs. out-of-state renewable projects following allowing frequent projects front doorstep to the be bought may well relief form of new show military protection. California's RPS appears to be at risk in light of Ref Posner's language. A on nitpicky dispute of the instability of various states' RPSs is impossible here.

"Illinois Industriousness Board v. FERC" leaves many questions unanswered. Superfluous all, it rubble to be seen whether Michigan's RPS efficiently violates the dormant Industriousness Piece of writing. Raze to the ground if unfair as on paper, it may be voluntary for Michigan, California, and other states with exact RPSs to revise their laws to take away any civilization vs. out-of-state renewable projects. Nonetheless this may blow the source of a state's renewable energy, such an change may well cool the crass RPS from Industriousness Piece of writing challenges. For now, Michigan's RPS promoting quiet renewables rubble alike, but Ref Posner's language incentive add to the mortal obscurity about the constitutionality of these laws.

By Justin Graham.

Read More

Oakfield Opponents Attorney The Fix Is In For Wind

U.S. court upholds Maine wind farm permit in bald eagle case

Ayesha Rascoe

(Reuters) - A federal court has ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not violate environmental regulations when it granted a permit to a Maine wind farm, prompting an environmental attorney to remark that "the fix is in" for wind power projects.

Environmentalists sued the agency in 2013, arguing that construction of the wind energy facility in Oakfield, Maine would violate the Endangered Species Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act by threatening the habitats of Atlantic salmon and bald eagles.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine ruled on Friday that the Corps did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it granted a permit to Evergreen Wind Power II allowing the company to fill certain wetlands and streams during the construction of the wind farm.

"We are pleased with the court's decision," said Juliet Browne of Verrill Dana, who represented Evergreen. Work on the wind farm began last year, Browne said.

No decision has been made on whether to appeal the ruling, said attorney Lynne Williams, who represented the environmental groups. Williams said she will recommend against an appeal, because "the deck is stacked against anyone who objects to a wind project."

"The fix is in for wind," Williams said. "They're the only industry that gets a pass on environmental protection because they are 'green'."

Green groups, including Protect Our Lakes and the Forest Ecology Network, said the Corps acted illegally by approving the permit without having sufficient information on the presence of Atlantic salmon in streams in the path of the wind farm's transmission lines.

But U.S. District Judge Jon Levy ruled that the law allows government agencies to act as long as they use the best available data, even if that data is "incomplete or imperfect."

Judge Levy also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the Corps should not have issued the permit without requiring Evergreen to get authorization to potentially harm eagles.

Levy said there is no evidence that eagles have been harmed or will be harmed by the project in the future.

The case is Protect Our Lakes et al v. United States Army Corps Of Engineers et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, No. 1:13-cv-00402.

For the plaintiffs: Lynne Williams, Law Office of Lynne A. Williams

For the defendants: Robert Williams and John Osborn of U.S. Justice Department, Juliet Browne of Verrill Dana

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/25/usa-energy-windpower-idUSL1N0VZ0RW20150225

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Read More