On March 21, 2013, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) granted the petition of a group of hydroelectric licensees, calling themselves the Power Site Reservation Fee Group, declaring that FERC will not assess annual land use charges pursuant to Section 10(e)(1) of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 803(e)(1), for lands owned by licensees but still subject to a power site reservation in accordance with Section 24 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 818. (more…)
Fee Relief: FERC Agrees to No Longer Assess Annual Charges to Projects Subject to Power Site ReservationsMonday, March 25, 2013 9:56 am by David Poe and Shamai Elstein
In a move somewhat unusual in the context of its normal exercise of authority with respect to hydroelectric licenses, on January 15, 2013 FERC publicly issued a “Staff Notice of Violations”, stating that its staff had preliminarily determined that Seneca Falls Power Corporation has violated several articles of the license for the Seneca Falls Project, No. P-2438, located in upstate New York. The litany of alleged violations is long, ranging from failure to procure and maintain adequate property rights for the project to failure to meet certain environmental conditions, such as maintenance of water elevations, installing fish passage facilities, monitoring wetlands and installing recreational facilities. The procedural posture of the case is that the FERC Office of Enforcement Staff has now completed its fact-finding, presented Seneca Falls with its preliminary findings, Seneca Falls has had the opportunity to respond and Staff has had an opportunity to analyze the response. Frequently after a Notice of Alleged Violation, we see that the subject of an investigation enters into a settlement with FERC Enforcement Staff. The Notice of Alleged Violation is the first time the Office of Enforcement’s investigation becomes public. (more…)
Regardless of the final result, one thing is certain: the debate that took place in the 2012 election cycle over energy and environmental issues was a diametrically different debate that the one that took place just four years ago. Cap-and-trade legislation? Nowhere to be seen or heard. Climate change? See cap-and-trade. Shale gas development? A competition over who favors it more. Permits for offshore oil and gas development? A debate over who has or will get them out the door fastest. Perhaps nothing signified this stunning turn of events more than President Obama’s campaign running pro-coal advertisements in Ohio that attacked Governor Romney for once saying that pollution from coal plants was dangerous to public health.
Now that the election is over and President Obama has been reelected, where does all of this rhetoric leave energy and environmental issues heading into a second Obama term? In this post my colleagues Jeff Holmstead and Scott Segal and I examine the likely impacts on the major areas of energy and environmental policy. (more…)
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Courts, DOE, Enforcement, Environmental, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Offshore, Regional Energy Law, Renewable Energy/Cleantech, Shale Development, Upstream Energy
In a video interview following the 2012 elections, Scott Segal, head of the Bracewell & Giuliani’s Policy Resolution Group, analyzed the prospects for energy and environmental issues following the 2012 elections. Scott’s discussion focused on the regionalized nature of the election in battleground states; the close relationship between energy policy and job creation in battleground states; the “uncorking” of energy and environmental regulation after the election; Congressional oversight; climate change action; and prospects for the power, oil and gas, shale, renewable, and offshore sectors.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm ET
The future of the power and energy industries from the perspective of investors and sponsors – including implications for coal, gas and oil prices, regulatory activity, permitting trends, enforcement, environmental, and legislative and tax prospects – will face changes based on the outcome of both the Presidential and Congressional elections this November.
Bracewell & Giuliani will host a complimentary webinar featuring Scott Segal, head of the Policy Resolution Group of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP. For over 20 years Scott has been a leading lawyer and advocate in Washington, D.C. for energy investors, sponsors, developers, and power producers on sensitive issues such as energy legislation and regulation, the Clean Air Act, and environmental issues. Scott will be joined by Jeff Holmstead, who heads Bracewell’s Environmental Strategies Group and was the longest-serving head of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, and by the head of our Financial Restructuring Group, Evan Flaschen.
This webinar will focus on issues such as:
- The impact the next President and Congress will have on energy and clean air policy
- Regulatory prospects, challenges and opportunities for coal-fired projects
- Regulatory prospects, challenges and opportunities for fracking
- Investment opportunities in energy-related industries and technologies
- Is it safe yet to invest in green energy projects and technologies? Nuclear?
- Implications of the election for power and energy restructurings
For more information or to register, click here.
Category: Air Quality/Climate Change, Enforcement, Environmental, National Energy Law, Natural Gas/LNG, Nuclear, Offshore, Regional Energy Law, Reliability, Renewable Energy/Cleantech, Upstream Energy
In late September 2012, the Obama Administration blocked plans by a Chinese company to build wind projects in Oregon, citing national security considerations due to the close proximity of a U.S. Navy site near the proposed site. This recent order to cease activity related to the wind projects was the result of a review process by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
CFIUS is a federal inter-agency committee that is charged with reviewing the national security implications of foreign investments in U.S. companies or operations. With the cross-border nature of many investments in the worldwide energy industry, questions relating to the national security implications of investments in the United States inevitably arise. In the video below, Josh Zive, senior counsel in the Policy Resolution Group at Bracewell & Giuliani, recently sat down with my colleague, PRG partner Paul Nathanson, to provide a concise overview of CFIUS, including explanations of:
- how the CFIUS review process works,
- why companies undertake the time and expense of going through the voluntary filing process,
- why CFIUS disapproves transactions, and
- what foreign investors and U.S. companies should be looking out for in the near future.