Search results for: greenhouse gas

On Feb. 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its final rule (published at 91 Fed. Reg. 7686) rescinding the 2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean  Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66496 (Dec. 15, 2009) (Endangerment Finding) and all subsequent federal greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for vehicle and engine model years 2012 and onward that relied on the Endangerment Finding. This action represents a continuing shift in U.S. climate policy because the Endangerment Finding has served as the basis for many regulatory efforts to reduce GHG emissions from both mobile and stationary sources.

Click here to read the full GT Alert.

On Aug. 1, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a major climate policy shift by proposing to rescind its 2009 Endangerment Finding, which has been the basis of many regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from both mobile and stationary sources. The proposed rule, Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards, 90 Fed. Reg. 36288 (Aug. 1., 2025) (Reconsideration Proposal), also seeks to rescind all greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty, medium duty, and heavy-duty vehicles and engines promulgated under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and based on the Endangerment Finding. While the Reconsideration Proposal explicitly seeks to repeal existing vehicle emission standards, EPA signaled potential changes for other industries reliant on the Endangerment Finding, including oil and gas, power plants, and aircraft engine manufacturers. As the Agency re-examines its authority and the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases, businesses and policymakers should prepare for changes in regulatory direction and policy uncertainty.

Click here to read the full GT Alert.

This article is an effort to hit the “reset” button on the frequently breathless commentary on the recently argued Supreme Court case (West Virginia et al v. EPA) addressing the scope of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil-fuel powered power plaints.

Click here to read the article, published by the American Coal Council’s American Coal magazine, Issue 1 2022. Reprinted with permission.

On 20 December 2019 the Dutch Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case of Urgenda against the Dutch State. In 2013, the NGO Urgenda started a civil law procedure against the Dutch State for “knowingly exposing its own citizens to danger” by not taking sufficient measures to prevent climate change and therefore not preventing the foreseeable harm caused by climate change. The Dutch government acknowledged the potentially harmful consequences of climate change, but argued it could not be ordered to act via a court procedure. Continue Reading The Dutch Supreme Court Obliges the Dutch Government to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Mexico’s General Climate Change Law (Ley General de Cambio Climático) published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación “DOF”) on June 6, 2012, and the Regulations to the General Climate Change Law of the National Emissions Registry (Ley General de Cambio Climático en Materia del Registro Nacional de Emisiones) published in the DOF on October 28, 2014, set forth the creation of several public policy instruments, which include the National Emissions Registry (the Registry).

Purpose of the Registry

The Registry compiles the required information on greenhouse gas and compound emissions with respect to the energy, transport, industrial, agricultural and livestock, waste, commerce and service sectors, which must submit mandatory reports (the Report) on direct and indirect emissions produced from their facilities, either from fixed or mobile sources, whenever they exceed 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

To read the full GT Alert, click here.

Although there has been a significant shift with regard to climate change policy with the change of administrations, a recent decision at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) makes clear that the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA, enacted in 1970, remains an important weapon for those who seek to ensure that the climate change impacts of major federal actions are considered.  On Aug. 22, 2017, the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to fully examine greenhouse gas impacts related to a pipeline project because the agency’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project failed to consider the impacts from greenhouse gas emissions from the power plants to be served by the proposed pipeline.

Continue Reading.

On June 23, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an Order Denying Rehearing of its earlier April 6, 2015 order, authorizing Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC to construct and operate natural gas liquefaction export facilities. The order is noteworthy for the Commission’s response to the arguments made by the Sierra Club that the Commission failed to follow the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reviews, which was issued in December 2014 (Draft Guidance). In its earlier April 6 Order, the Commission noted that the Draft Guidance had not been issued at the time the Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed in that case. In the recent rehearing order, however, the Commission addressed the Draft Guidance on the merits despite the timing of the EA in the case, and even though the Draft Guidance has not yet been finalized. Thus, this Order provides a glimpse of how the Commission intends to address the Draft Guidance.

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Draft Guidance is its instruction that agencies’ NEPA analyses take into account GHG “emissions from activities that have a reasonably close causal relationship to the Federal action, such as those that may occur as a predicate for the agency action (often referred to as upstream emissions) and as a consequence of the agency action (often referred to as downstream emissions).” In the Sabine Pass Rehearing Order, the Commission continued to follow its prior findings that the impacts of future gas production are not sufficiently causally linked to the project under consideration. Therefore, consistent with its evaluation of other environmental impacts of gas production, the Commission found that the GHG impacts of such production (i.e., upstream emissions) are not reasonably foreseeable and do not require NEPA analysis. With respect to downstream emissions, the Commission declined to consider the effects of natural gas use in importing countries as part of a cumulative effects analysis. While the Commission identified climate change-related effects in the project region resulting from GHG emissions, it concluded that it could not be determined whether the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on climate change would be significant. Importantly, the Commission cited to the Draft Guidance in support of its conclusion that its responsibility under NEPA focuses on local or regional environmental impacts attributable to the project. The Commission found that any net change in global emissions is dependent on the fuels being replaced with natural gas and that any such impacts are “distant” from the project.

Continue Reading.

On April 30, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued a direct final rule that will allow the rescission of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) permits issued by EPA or delegated state and local permitting authorities under Step 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule.  The rule, published at 80 Fed. Reg. 26,183(May 7, 2015), is necessary to implement the decision last year in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (“UARG”) where the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA may not rely on greenhouse gases (“GHG”) alone when determining whether a new source (or modification of an existing source) is required to obtain a PSD preconstruction permit or title V operating permit.  Sources where GHGs alone triggered PSD requirements were known as “Step 2” sources, because they were covered under Step 2 of EPA’s Tailoring Rule.

The direct final rule does not rescind any EPA-issued Step 2 permits, but provides a regulatory mechanism for EPA and delegated state and local permitting authorities eventually to rescind them.  Currently, 40 C.F.R. 52.21(w), which provides authority for a source holding a PSD permit to seek rescission of a PSD permit, is limited to permits issued on or before July 30, 1987.  Because any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits were issued under regulations effective after July 30, 1987, the rescission authority in 40 CFR 52.21(w) is not currently available to sources with EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits. This rulemaking will allow for rescission of any EPA-issued Step 2 PSD permits upon request by the permitted source. Permitting agencies already have the necessary regulatory authority to revise any title V permits that incorporated PSD Step 2 permitting requirements.

The direct final rule will become effective on July 6, 2015, unless adverse comments are received by June 8th.   EPA also simultaneously published a proposed rule (at 80 Fed. Reg. 26, 210), and will pursue additional rulemaking under that proposal if adverse comments are received on the direct final rule.  Once the rule becomes effective, EPA will begin the process of rescinding EPA-issued Step 2 permits.  In a guidance memorandum issued on December 19, 2014, EPA outlined that it will exercise narrowly-tailored enforcement discretion with respect to EPA-issued Step 2 permits until they are rescinded.

Note that this action does not apply to state-issued PSD permits in states with GHG PSD programs in their EPA approved State Implementation Plans (“SIP)”.  This is because state authority under the SIPs (e.g., state authority to rescind the permit) already might be available to provide relief from the state-issued Step 2 PSD permit requirements.   In addition, as stated in EPA’s July 24, 2014, post-UARG guidance memorandum, EPA does not read the Supreme Court’s decision as precluding states from retaining permitting requirements for major sources of GHG only emissions to the extent state law provides independent authority to do so. Therefore, sources with state-issued Step 2 PSD permits should review their state permitting requirements to address questions regarding GHG only permits.

This action also does not resolve the question of what constitutes a “significant emissions rate” threshold for GHGs emitted by sources that were regulated under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule.  The Supreme Court’s ruling in UARG held that EPA could subject GHG emissions from new or modified sources to Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”) review requirements if their emissions of conventional pollutants were regulated under the PSD program anyway.  The Court said that EPA could regulate these so-called “anyway” sources if GHG emissions were emitted from them at more than de minimis levels.  But the Court further stated that the 75,000 tons per year (“tpy”) threshold that EPA had used in Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule does not necessarily qualify as a de minimis level.  EPA has said that it will initiate a rulemaking to establish an appropriate de minimis threshold for Step 1 sources.  In the meantime, EPA is continuing to apply 75,000 tpy as the emissions rate from “anyway” sources that will trigger BACT review for GHGs at such sources.

Written by Aonghus Heatley

European Union (EU) leaders recently reached agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2030 as compared with 1990 levels. The leaders also agreed a binding, at the EU level, target to obtain at least 27 percent of the EU’s energy from renewable sources by 2030 and a voluntary target to cut energy use by at least 27 percent as against baseline levels. The agreement expanded the number of EU member states with emissions targets beyond 2020 from five to 28 – the entire EU bloc.

To achieve the agreement’s overall binding 40 percent reduction target, power companies and other industries covered by the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) will be required to reduce their emissions by 43 percent compared with 2005 levels. Emissions from sectors outside the ETS, such as buildings and infrastructure, will be required to be reduced by 30 percent compared with 2005 levels. These headline EU level figures are to be translated into individual member state targets by 2021.

The United Kingdom government had a stated aim shared by a number of other member states, to ensure flexibility in the U.K. energy mix. The government appears to have achieved that goal. Under the agreement, member states will be able to de-carbonise in a manner of their choosing, for example by favouring, nuclear power over renewable energy.

In terms of the UK government’s response, Ed Davey, the UK’s Energy Secretary, described the agreement as being “good for consumers” as it would allow the UK to “decarbonise at the lowest possible cost using a diverse mix of technologies.” Mr Davey added that, for businesses, the agreement “provides the certainty they have been calling for to unlock billions in low carbon investment”.

The European Council’s outline of the agreement is available here.